Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

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]

• For the historical record: the Requests for investigation noticeboard was active from 30 May 2004 to 29 January 2007. Carcharoth 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Mistaken (cut'n'paste moves skrewed the history up). See Wikipedia:Requests for investigation#Historical notice `'mikka 18:54, 30 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]

{{

I am quite certain that vandalism in progress (or VANDALISM IN PROGRESS as it was then known) was started on

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]

The protection level's been dropped to semi while this request was up here; you can make the change yourself now. --ais523 17:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I've added the historical links. Just one question though: was there any significant history at VANDALISM IN PROGRESS or talk:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS before they were deleted as cross-namespace redirects? If so, they should be undeleted and moved somewhere like wikipeedia:requests for investigation/old and wikipedia talk:requests for investigation/old and should be mentioned here. Graham87 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS; it seems that the relevant revisions were lost (some really old revisions seem to have disappeared), unless they were moved elswhere and the revisions showing the move were lost instead (which is possible, because the move log doesn't go back that far). The history from 1 to 15 December 2001 was retained in an old database snapshot, though; see [1]. Feel free to contact me if you find any other titles to check for old revisions. --ais523 08:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC

)

This might be a longshot, but is there any useful history at all relating to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (other than Quagga's)? It was moved to that title in May 2004 - see Wikipedia:Village pump/May 2004 archive 2#Vandalism in Progress page. Graham87 04:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been a longshot, but it worked! That page was moved to

Wikipedia:Archive/Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/History, and non-sysops can view it there. Hope that helps! --ais523 07:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC

)

Thanks, I knew it had to be somewhere out there. :) Graham87 07:59, 21 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

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]

I've gone and redacted the name from Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2004/09. Graham87 05:11, 16 May 2022 (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]