Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Anyone think all the Wikis should have a single vandalism page? --(talk to)BozMo 09:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a system for dealing with inter-wiki vandalism. I can't remember what it is though. The en or meta vandalism pages will probably explain it. -- Tango 10:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

There are no inter-wiki vandalism measures. There is some sort of procedure for large scale attacks by vandalbots at m:vandalbot, but that's all I know of. Angela 04:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The Shaft in Africa page on simple.wiki is a fake, claiming to be about "Advance fee fraud" (see main english wiki) ... cheers 72.164.55.2 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, {{ipvandal}} was created, to duplicate the template used in English Wikipedia. Sorry.-- Tdxiang 09:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No edit?[change | change source]

I can't add a vandal I want to report. What's going on? Totnesmartin 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The page is protected against IP users and new users. You should be clear of that in a day or 2. -- Creol(talk) 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
OK then.
Ah, that's better. Totnesmartin 11:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

New Vandal[change | change source]

71.91.137.1 is vandalising Turkey and Saudi arabia. i'm reporting him here because I'm too new to edit the proper page. Totnesmartin 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

67.81.102.22[change | change source]

I would like to add 67.81.102.22 (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log), which is my own IP address, to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress so that the IP would be blocked to prevent my sister from spreading the word on Wikipedia that I like this girl named Emily Roberts. But Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is protected. Could an admin add 67.81.102.22 to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress please? Han Amos 20:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's currently semi-protected, so after 4 days you should be able to edit it from your account. However, we currently can't block that IP just because of this. It sounds very annoying, but we don't normally block people unless they're causing a big problem. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Old requests[change | change source]

Shouldn't a bot remove the old or stale requests (to an archive possibly)? Thoughts? Synergy 01:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's usually just archived manually every month. I don't think there's any problem with old requests staying there for a month. I don't see any real need for a bot. en:WP:AIV gets reports constantly practically every few minutes, so requests there would be filled if left there for a month. That's not really the same here. Is there any reason to why you want to archive old completed/declined requests so quickly? – RyanCross (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Because it looks messy and hard to navigate. Synergy 02:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
And reporting areas on -en.wiki act like this: once a report is either stale, or admin action has been taken, its removed (either manually, or by a bot). What would be the purpose of leaving them there for a full month? Thats what an archive is for. Synergy 02:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would add a lot of unnecessary edits if we archived them much faster than what we do now. Stuff is archived fast on en due to the fact that it would bring the servers to their knees if they let reports stay there for a long time. alexandra (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that doesn't really make much sense. If we have fewer reports than -en, then a bot, or at least manually removing the reports wouldn't bring the servers to their knees. I see plenty of repetitive and fast edits being made on a day to day basis. I don't see that as being an issue here. Archiving would just be cleaner and more up to date, and a bot would be used when we don't need our regular editors wasting edits by performing such a task. Synergy 02:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, AIV isn't archived; old reports are just removed as they're taken care of. I don't see any need to view "vandalism in progress" reports at any time after the fact. Any archives would be an absolute pain to archive, and wouldn't really be worth it. EVula // talk // 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure they are. The community felt it was needed a few months back. Also, a few editors use them to make note of the VIP reports, for RfA. :) Synergy 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not AIV, that's ViP. Majorly talk 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I was talking about AIV on the English Wikipedia. As for looking thru reports, you can just as easily search the candidate's contribs. *shrug* EVula // talk // 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Maj: the only difference between en's AIV and simple's VIP, is where the requests go. This thread was intended to discuss the mirroring of AIV, but keep the archives (since that was the communities wish). Synergy 00:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo shows vandalism. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is referred to as "The Treaty of kelsey loves you! Guadalupe Hidalgo". I can't fix this, as my IP address is blocked from editing regular pages (it's a school thing; I'm not a vandal), so would someone who has a free moment please do so?

Note: 4/7: This has been fixed. Thanks!

Archiving[change | change source]

Hi there all. I couldn't help but notice how often this page gets archived. While I do believe that it is beneficial, I really do think that it should only be archived a maximum of two times per month. I would like to request all other editors out there to please wait to archive this page for at least 2 weeks in between archives. Thanks, Razorflame 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the point in that would be. Once the editor is blocked, no further action is necessary. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have encountered an error[change | change source]

I am unable to find the <!-- PLEASE POST ALL NEW REPORTS AT THE TOP --> tags and therefore cannot archive. --Chris G Bot 3 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That may have been my mistake. I believe I've fixed it. EhJJTALK 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Found an IP[change | change source]

This IP 72.27.146.86 has made a bad change to Shot put. I have reverted it and put down a test edit warning on his page. Loudclaw (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome thanks! If they keep vandalizing, and you warn them 4 times, you can put the template {{ipvandal|IP Number here}} on the WP:VIP page and an admin will take care of it. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Huh, I guess he left.......Loudclaw (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem on Shustov's page[change | change source]


Help ![change | change source]

I 'm a teacher and i used the "history of England" page with my students. Some of them had fun editing the page while the others were working. How can i find out the names of the culprits ?83.198.136.214 (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like none of them logged in. They all edited under the IP address, so there isn't a way to find out the names. You can direct your students to WP:Sandbox, however, where they are welcome to experiment all they want. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

User vandalising Red Bull House of Art page[change | change source]

Ringcluder (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log) is purposefully putting false information on the page Red Bull House of Art (Cycle 10 section). I tried to undo the action when I wasn't registered on wiki, and user Corruption Watchchihuahua (talkchanges <deleted>nuke contribspage movesblock userhardblockblock log) changed it back. I made a complaint on the talk page but the other users seem to ignore me.

I'm new here and I cannot edit the Red Bull page directly because I am one of the artists listed. But Ringcluder is just typing lies on the page, including handicap jokes; it's disrespectful and upsetting. Thank you for helping. — This unsigned comment was added by 82.25.51.86 (talk • changes) on 15:31, 10 January 2015‎.

I'm afraid we can't help, because the changes you're talking about are on English Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia. We can't help with things on other Wikipedias. Please ask for help at English Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was reported as a promotional bot?[change | change source]

Hi guys, i need help, i was reported as a promotional bot which i am not actually. I started an article but actually that should not make me a bot. I still need this account to edit other articles. So, can anyone be kind enough to tell me what should i do to avoid being complained as a bot? Thanks and much appreciated.