Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archive 4

message: See User:Pathoschild/Projects/Schism for a list of changes necessary to implement this in three phases with nearly no disruption. This will involve heavy use of semi-automated and automated tools, so anyone who can use these is welcome to help. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasks 

message: Is there any major problem with keeping the old WP:VIP/ subpages as redirects? Whoever deleted them has probably made tons of peoples shortcuts and broswer autocompletes and (Whatever you call that function in Ffx)s useless, as well as any off-wiki links. 68.39.174.238 02:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the shortcuts were preserved and now point to the RFI pages. Browser autocomplete addresses will be quickly updated as users find the new location. Interwiki links are the only problem, but they are a trivial one; no community is harmed in any way if their Willy on Wheels trophy page temporarily doesn't link to Wikipedia's trophy page. We're actively fixing these interwiki links, and other projects will find the new locations rather quickly. There will be a gentle transition from the old location to the new. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 03:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most subpage shortcuts are still missing: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Wikipedia is Communism and Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Squidward are two. Not all "off-wiki" links are in interwiki: Benon is going to sent a letter to the responsible library over the latter, he nearly sent it with a hard (http://) link to the old one, which would've been defective. Wikipedia, for that matter, is not harmed in any way by having about 10 more Wikipedia: namespace redirects which, from what I gather, is almost always used in other renamings of pages in that space (EG. "Sock puppet" now redirects to "Sock puppetry"). 68.39.174.238 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New comment 

message: Don't we have this already? WP:AN/I? Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 20:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that's a discussion board related to incidents. This is a process page designed specifically for requesting investigation and is constantly streamlined and tweaked to this end. Requests placed here are dealt with by administrators experienced in this task, and are ideally resolved within a day or two. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... I'm a bit hazy on this one.  We've had a few pages deleted recently as "unofficial forks" of existing pages.  At the very least, the page needs to be re-designed to explain better why this isn't a fork. - brenneman {L}  06:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I'm not sure what would count as 'official', but there was a fair amount of consensus for the name change of this page (formally Vandalism in Progress). The main discussion happened above, with notes notifying of the possible change placed on all related pages (they didn't attract much attention). The reason for the change was that VIP was becoming less about 'vandalism in progress' as simple vandalism should be reported to AIV. On the other hand ANI should be for situations that need multiple admins to review and discuss. This page fits somewhere in between, for dealing with those reports that are too complicated for AIV (they get removed from there with no action), but doesn't need discussion. In that respect reports like the one currently on RFI for Robertsteadman are probably misplaced, as this page shouldn't have all that discussion attached to a report. For a counter example, on first glance it looks like the RmB report below that one is just the sort of thing this page routinely deals with. It would be great if more admins could watch and act reports here though, so it might be work a post on the AN to see if others are interested in doing some work over here. Improvements (or suggestions for improvements) to the page guidelines are always welcome! Petros471 08:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't we have this already? 

message: I think we should all be on the lookout during April Fools Day.  I know many websites like Maddox's site do April Fools day stunts.  And wikipedia is self-editing, so that's something.  DyslexicEditor 00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WARNING: APRIL FOOLS DAY IS ALMOST HERE 

message: Can someone explain this ? Just visiting. Martial Law 00:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can....

message: Uh how do you obtain the ip address of a user (who has violated the 3RR , vandalized)?--Jondel 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are an unregistered user, then their IP address will be displayed. For registered users, you must request a Checkuser to determine what IP used for a username. ^demon[yell at me] /16:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting the ip address

message: To help with the backlog, can we reformat the way in which new requests are reported? I believe a third-level header (====) with the name of the person reported would greatly help to organize the page. --ZsinjTalk 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I originally didn't encourage a system like this was to try end stop the reports getting too long. The description should be brief, not a long conversation/argument as sometimes appears here. If you think it'd help though we can give it a go. Petros471 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the "investigations" usually seem to become "cases," it seems only appropriate, espically when we have as many reports (and reports per day) as we do. --ZsinjTalk 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a lot of the reports now do seem to have more discussion attached to them, subheaders will make them more manageable. I've updated the reporting instructions at the top of the sections. Petros471 21:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested reporting format change 

message: (also posted to Konstable's discussion page)  Konstable:  Yes, user RandomP does discuss his reasons for wanting my paragraph out, but his reasons are vague, they do not point to any specific way to fix the paragraph (other than to obfuscate it into something so condensed and mathematically obtuse that most Wikipedia readers will not know what it means), and while he is discussing he is also immediately deleting the paragraph every time it reappears, despite any tweaks made in an attempt to address his concerns.  This is looking to me like an inherent weakness in Wikipedia:  Any user can block any content for any period of time as long as he is willing to "discuss" his reasons for doing so, whether or not they make any sense.  This has already happened to me in the pi page; I wound up moving my content to my own webpage:  http://alienryderflex.com/pi.html  --DarelRex 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: E (Mathematical constant)

message: I've done all the investigating on my user page and the evidence is clearly laid out there.  It took  a while for me to figure it out, but hopefully all the work I've done makes the connection between a registered user and two IP addresses that have made some serious edits and have also vandalised articles obvious to the jury.  Anyhow, since an investigation was required on my part to figure everything out do I post the information here?  -- Sapphire 04:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want an administrator to do something about it, you should post a link to it here. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain this to me... 

message: My user (Kelvin Williams) has been hacked into recently, now I have no access or control of this user. I noticed I could not access this user at about (GMT 10:30+) 6:24, 9th of November 2006. I have a feeling that it is somebody from my University doing it as a joke. Could you please, please look into this and if possible get my user back. Please try to understand Kelvin Williams II 08:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a way to independently verify that you are that user, then you would need to get in contact with the developers. Otherwise, there is nothing that can be done. —Centrx→talk • 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you set up an email address, you can have the account mail you a new password. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacking 

message: My participation at this board has dropped off in the last ten days, partly due to the Joan of Arc vandal and partly because three of the cases I've handled here have gone into arbitration.  I expect my participation here to remain somewhat diminished while these are ongoing. DurovaCharge! 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To other admins 

message: I suggested on Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Help that we should provide a clearer definition of complex vandalism on that page.  Since I got no response, I figured I'd copy the message here in hopes that more folks would see it.  We could also just link to a page that explains complex vandalism.  delldot | talk 05:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Define better

message: I might myself consider bringing this to mfd, had WP:PAIN not just undergone the same. Vandals can go months (!) on here with no response, and anything an administrator should look at is hopelessly out of date. This happened to me a while back, when I posted (had I known of WP:AN/I, I would have posted there, and surely gotten a response). Thoughts? I mean, again, I think this page is not overtly helpful, as few admins patrol it. -Patstuarttalk|edits 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't count on a response from AN/I.  I had to throw a massive eppy and embarrass myself before I could get a block on my pet vandal, and now that he's shifted his IP address I still haven't been able to get the new one blocked for 24 hours.  It's soul-destroying to have your last 200 edits be nothing but dealing with one vandal and have what seems like no support. Vashti 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had problems with another user who always entered a copyvio-version in an article. Each day I looked if I had to revert it again to the warning. After several weeks I had enough and decided to report him. It was a shock to see this page. I knew immediately why nobody before me decided to report the guy. Nothing seems to happen at least for days. In the German Wiki requests for investigation are handled much faster. 24 hours after the last entry to a request it gets archived. But usually it takes much less than an hour for something to happen (even at night). Before I first tried to report someone here I was really annoyed when it took them longer than the one hour but now I know different. -- CecilK 03:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this page requires more attention. I will speak to some admins about putting more resources here. Newyorkbrad 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Months is an exaggeration. I don't think there's a single entry older than a month that has not been followed up on. Also, there is a necessity for this  or similar page. WP:PAIN was deleted for philosophical reasons, not inactivity. —Centrx→talk • 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed that not enough attention is paid. I've been waiting for 10 days, which is actually quite a long time. It gives vandals a free rein in such a period. A real weakness in WIkipedia. Logoistic 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enough attention paid here