Memory Alpha talk:Vandalism in progress

A question, probably already answered...
(but not in the FAQ) ;-)

Why not simply disallow non-registered members to edit pages? or, require non-registered users' changes to be moderated. --Funkdubious 03:12, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Because that would vastly decrease the number of casual editors who do not wish to join but wish to make minor contributions, if they, by chance stumble onto this site. Besides, the vandalism here isn't that bad considering the overall IP volume we receive that we have to make this a "members only" club. --Alan del Beccio 03:17, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The first part of what Alan said is the classic Wikipedian argument; that it's a free and open and cooperative and whatever encyclopedia effort. The second is also true, because I hardly see any vandalism here as much as just misunderstandings and whatnot. The way I see it, what's the point of making people register if the true vandals are just going to register bogus names anyway? --Broik 03:20, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * For example: User:BajoranBadass, User:BajoranBrouhaha, User:BajoranBumpkin, User:Lazarus the 1337, User:Lazarus the Annihlator, User:Lazarus the Destroyer, User:Lazarus the Mighty, among others-- which have been more or less confirmed to be the same user. --Alan del Beccio 04:17, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * True, true. What about moderation of unregistered user edits then?  A reasonable stopgap but I bet there's a catch: (something like its not built yet?)  I know I wanted to register to contribute meaningful content under a particular account, whereas I would bet a larger percent of the vandals wouldn't even bother to register.  And I certainly see the appeal of anonymous contributions.  --Funkdubious 04:53, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha:Vandalism in progress needs restructing
Frankly, this page is a mess. We either need to clean it out completely periodically (like the sandbox) or split the page into two sections, "Current vandalism" and "Archived vandals"-- that can be used as a "watch list" for reference to "current vandalism" posters and admins. Thoughts? Comments? --Alan del Beccio 04:17, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Starting an archive structure at -- does this seem acceptable (admins delete if we don't think archiving is necessary) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

New form of vandalism (archived from )
Over the past 24 hours I have noticed several dozen random IP users contributing to pages by essentially re-saving the current version over itself, and not actually making a useful contribution to the page(s) whatsoever. Granted this is more annoying than vandalism, it is still vandalism none-the-less, and I just wanted to make a note of it, as it does waste a lot of time for anyone review the recent changes. --Alan del Beccio 18:04, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)