I am so pleased that this page was created so that something like the Supershadow purge of Nov 2 doesn't happen again. --Darth Mantus 20:40, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • The alleged StupidShadow attack was a factor, but it was motivated more by Angela's comment on the Community Portal Talk page, where she seemed surprised we didn't have one. (And I call it the "alleged StupidShadow attack" because I still don't think StupidShadow is smart enough to commit a vandalism spree, even though a brain-damaged chimpanzee is smart enough to vandalize a wiki.) —Darth Culator (talk) 01:45, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)


This page is hilarious. I have it bookmarked on my favorites because of the sheer quality of the garbage that some of the more ambitious vandals can come up with. Thanks go to Ozzel, Silly Dan, Obiwankenobi, and the others for constantly marking and reviewing vandalism for my reading pleasure. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).


Do the admins even look at this page? There are a lot of people that have done consistent vandalism, such as Hatheway, getting lots of alerts, but continuing their rampages for several weeks still. -- SFH 00:01, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • We simply need more admins! KEJ 00:14, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, so no one does pay attention to me =Þ. Hatheway has been taken care of several times over and will be taken care of again in the future. To answer the original question, I have this page on my watchlist, and check it whenever there is a change and act appropriately. StarNeptune 01:37, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • That's great, and that's why I think we need more people like you. KEJ 13:27, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Clearing the backlogEdit

  • There are currently a large number of old alerts, long since dealt with, still on the page and making it tougher to navigate than it needs to be. Should we have a method of clearing dealt-with problems from the page, either by archiving or outright deletion, to keep this page lean and easy to use? jSarek 21:42, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • We should. How about making an archive for 2005, where we can move the current list after December 31? Alerts in the coming year could be moved to the 2006 archive after a week or so on this list. --Imp 01:35, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Why have an archive? We can always just look at the revision history, if needed. WhiteBoy 07:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Should we move this to Wookieepedia:Vandalism alerts? Simply because WP:VIP sounds like something else entirely. --Azizlight 00:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Make another page for fanon alerts?Edit

Fanon alerts are often reported here, and sometimes people reply with "that's not vandalism". Should we create Wookieepedia:Fanon alerts? --Azizlight 00:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)


Should we consider a point at which we "rake" this page? It's going back several months, and seems to be getting rather long. -- SFH 17:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think much more than a week's worth of reports is very useful to the moderators, possibly even less; it's hardly "in progress" anymore after a few days. jSarek 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Make another page for edit wars and other disputes? Edit

Not all vandalism reported on this page is vandalism. Some of the alerts are disputes over, say, if a certain class of capital ship was enormous or merely huge. In these cases, even the side that's completely wrong (if any) is often acting in good faith, trying to make the article more "accurate". Maybe those sorts of things should be put on a different dispute-resolution page, rather than putting it here with repeated shouts of "ignoramus", "idiot", etc.? Or would that be overcomplicating and overbureaucratizing things? — Silly Dan 18:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Noting bans Edit

I propose that the admins should make a note underneath the complaint after they ban someone. I noticed in the recent ban log that the same IP had been banned three times by three different people, so maybe noting when we banned someone would cut down on repeat bannings. StarNeptune 15:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Definitely agree here. WhiteBoy 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Admins in chat room Edit

What do y'all think about the admins hanging out in the IRC/Jabber chat room when we can, so we could be available to deal with any vandalism. This would allow for quicker responses to vandalism, plus people could drop in with questions, whatever. Thoughts? WhiteBoy 07:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • BTW, here's a link to the WikiCities web interface for the IRC chat room - WhiteBoy 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a good idea. Also, those admins who choose to do so might want to put their AIM/Yahoo/Jabber/Whatever addresses in some central location. (Unless they already are collected somewhere and I'm just missing them.) —Darth Culator (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic or static format? Edit

Are we going to settle on one or the other? I can't speak for others, but I feel having both is kind of redundant and confuses people. StarNeptune 09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I introduced the dynamic format for testing per WhiteBoy and Azizlight's IRC suggestion, in the hopes that it will unclutter the VIP page itself. I think we should leave the one that's more convenient for admins. As I'm not an admin yet and have no experience in banning vandals, I can't really say which one is better. - Sikon [Talk] 09:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • After having some time to mull it over, it seems like the dynamic format is more trouble than it's worth. It seems like it's easier to respond to things put here, and forcing people to actually edit the VIP page makes it show up both on the Recent Changes page, and on the watchlists of people who've designated it to be watched. jSarek 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive? Edit

Shouldn't the VIP page be archived or something? Or at least delete the older entries? The page is getting way too long, I mean, do we really need to keep reports of vandalism from way back in February? Those aren't exactly current alerts. I would say either archive or delete the old reports. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • Agreed. It's way too cluttered. -- Ozzel 21:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Archived. I suggest using the archive I just made until the end of June. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New Page Title Edit

Today i noticed that the page title reads "Wookieepedia: Vanc Progress".I'm sory if it's something I don't know because I'm new,or if this is the wrong place,but it displays so on my computer.What,Why? Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • It looks fine to me. Maybe it's your computer? —Silly Dan (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What do I do? Edit

I was unfairly accused of vandalism. Where do I go? Jamie550 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirecting (thus promoting the false fact and article) "Salacious Crumb survived the explosion" exposes you as a sock puppet or impersonator of a notorious vandalizer. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I was just fixing all the double redirects listed in the double redirects page regardless of how stupid they were.Jamie550 15:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • OK. (In future, double redirects which are clearly stupid, and don't have anything linked to them, should just be marked with {{delete}}. Most of them are move vandalism artifacts which we haven't gotten around to deleting yet.) —Silly Dan (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • So am I allowed to delete the VIP thing on my userpage?Jamie550 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • No, which is why I did it for you. ;-) jSarek 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Thanks. Jamie550 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution Edit

I suggest that we each week we form a volunteer anti-vandalism patrol team. This way we can be assured that someone is always on the defensive. Karohalva 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • We've got dozens of people checking recent changes and their watchlists already anyway: no need to formalize things. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thy point hath been exceedingly well taken. I asketh pardon for mine eccentricity. Karohalva 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the archives? Edit

  • Would anyone object if the archives were deleted, and any users who were blocked or warned by administrators were removed from the list? —Silly Dan (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No objections from me. Goes along quite well with Forum:Deny recognition, though I recommend keeping at least a month or two's history so we can watch for repeat offenders. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Per Ataru. The archives aren't necessary (we can dig up the actual block logs if we need records for some reason), but the usefulness of having a month or two of reports for easy admin reference outweighs the need to deny recognition, IMO. jSarek 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Anyone who wants to revert the change, go ahead: I'm removing the old reports. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection