Even the most diehard troll will give up fairly quickly when their vandalism gets erased by the combined effort of 30+ people.
Actually I think they both work - this page won't catch the "insidious" miscreants, the ones who edit only occasionally to try and promote a particlar viewpoint. My page is not realy useful for large-scale vandalism.
Agreed. --STG
OK - Taw, I agree that this page does not solve that problem. So what do we do then? - MMGB
Give short-term-IP-ban (like 30 minutes) rights to enough people, so that at least one of them is usually on wikipedia. Or rights of turning wikipedia into [War Mode]? for a short time (this will also work against distributed vandalism attack). During war mode all changes would be enqueued onto [War Mode/Proposed Changes Queue]? and could be accepted only by selected users. Of course this shouldn't be done unless somebody really attacks us with a perl script. Too much paranoia isn't really good. --Taw
I disagree - the purpose of this page is to catch everyone's attention. Hence it belongs on Recent Changes (where we spend a lot more time than on Meta), and needs the ALL CAPS, to stand out. - MMGB
You're missing the point, C. The page isn't commentary, it's a utility to bring attention to a sustained vandalism attack. The ALL CAPS TITLE fits perfectly with this purpose, and if I could, I'd make the title red too. ;-) --STG
Stephen, I'm not missing the point. Meta is for pages about Wikipedia. It's what meta means. (I know that some people are restricting it to "unofficial" meta-pages.) This is a meta-page.
I understand why you used the ALL CAPS TITLE, but I think that you should be more polite to people who don't care about this; meta was created so that people who don't want to see discussion on the Recent Changes page don't have to; similarly, the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS announcement, whether you consider it "commentary" or "utility", shouldn't be so obtrusive.
Note: I'm not complaining about the idea; I just think it doesn't have to be so loud to work; and if it doesn't have to be, then it shouldn't be. Please don't tell me that I'm missing the point. --TheCunctator
STG - you have my total support. If this thing was not so completely "in your face" I'd probably miss it and not be able to respond in time. - MMGB
Sounds excellent - who's got the coding chops to pull it off? (BTW this discussion about the Short-term ban facility SHOULD be moved to Meta) - MMGB
Because we're changing software anyway, such thing should be coded into PHPWiki. Try contacting Magnus Manske. --Taw
PHPWiki, I believe, is the name of a different PHP-based Wiki script. This script doesn't really have any name other than "Wikipedia PHP script" or "Magnus Manske's PHP script". --TheCunctator
I'm uncomfortable with making assertions about what other people's intentions or desires are; and "minimizing the fuss" often leads to unintentional suppression of useful information. I think it might be a better idea to keep this on meta; then it won't clutter up the main Wikipedia, but it will make sure that everyone's actions are clearly defined and accountable.
I believe that accountability is more important than worrying about whether idjots get satisfaction out of hearing their name in print. If we don't treat them like outlaws, they won't have anything to fight against. Branding juvies as "vandals" will just encourage them. (Of course, this is just one side...) --TheCunctator
I then promptly restored the deleted text, as Cunctator seems to have missed the point of the guideline - it is to provide a simple, understated method for editors to fix vandalised pages and notify others they have done so, and thus not trip over each other trying to figure out which pages have or have not been repaired. The simple code of "VR" is discrete, while still serving its purpose. MMGB
You not only restored the deleted text, but also deleted some of my additions. If you disagree with them, unless you feel that they must be removed immediately to protect Wikipedia, I would appreciate it if you expressed your disagreement here. Please stop making ad hominem attacks ("Cunctator seems to have missed the point of the guideline"). I have not impugned your talents for comprehension; rather, you seem very intelligent, though short with me. --TheCunctator
Actually there was no disagreement, that was simply a lack of diligence - I failed to check to see if there were any other changes. My apologies. - MMGB