When someone gets round to writing a warning essay on the history and deterioration of this noticeboard, can they include the dates below? Thanks. Carcharoth 13:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism shouldn't be listed as the only alternative, as this is only for simple vandalism that requires an immediate block. Cases that require investigation belong in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm going to mark that down as an alternative. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
{{editprotected}}
I am quite certain that vandalism in progress (or VANDALISM IN PROGRESS as it was then known) was started on 1 December 2001byStephen Gilbert. See the very first edit to it from Nostalgia Wikipedia for evidence. The name was in upper case so it could be distinguished at recent changes. This should definitely be mentioned on this page.
This could be mentioned - there is also a page called User:Manning Bartlett/Naughty people (here is the earliest revision available from 5 November 2001, also from Nostalgia Wikipedia). That is the earliest page I know of which tried to report vandals on Wikipedia. Graham87 12:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
As I pointed out here, the history of Talk:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS (the title of this talk page before August 2002), is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2002/01. Graham87 12:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've gone ahead and merged the histories of this page and [[Wikipedia:Historical archive/Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/History. Graham87 03:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
There was an old discussion now in archive 2 about the page history that I've just recently uncovered. Graham87 10:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Even though this is an archive, the entry for "142.177.41.102" contains a legally dubious allegation that "Hard-banned user EntmootsOfTrolls" definitely is a named person. That was never more than an allegation, and there is not a single link even to an alleged quote or compiled evidence to that effect. The name of that person ought to be redacted from this page so it is no longer visible in any search. It also appears that if this user was indeed that person, or even that named person, and has "written some lengthy economics articles" and been otherwise innocuous, that we should be especially careful not to libel anyone in anything currently visible online. Discredited articles and sourceless allegations - most from 2003-4 or rote repetition of those - continue to show up in searches by this person's name. That is definitely against several policies and a basis for legal action. I commented further on the matter [2] [3] regarding banning entire IP ranges that affect hundreds of thousands of users, and the use of ".etc" in an IP address to seemingly smear them all and justify witchhunts against particular views common in that city or region - a form of systemic bias. These problems seem to require an updated policy as Wikimedia Foundation does not as a rule present unfounded or unsourced allegations against persons who are also being told they cannot respond. That is a very bad legal position to be in, so this needs some attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect VANDALISM IN PROGRESS. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. funplussmart (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply