I have five months, one week.

We should restrict this to actual vandalism/libel, and not borderline cases. There's probably some people on WR (and Wikipedia) who would argue some borderline cases have been left unchecked for years.

I know of one that's been there since 2006. You have to know a lot of about several subjects to know that it's vandalism..and it will probably never be discovered, much less corrected.

Of course, I found it...so maybe there's another kook somewhere who will too...

I depends how you define vandalism.

There is an article hinting at a rumour involving Gordon Brown, a rocking horse and a nappy.

I think we've already done projects of this nature, most notably the "100 Senators" one - enough to satisfy most reasonable people that the "all vandalism is cleaned up within 5 minutes" line is a big pile of horseshit. Not that I would discourage anyone from looking, of course!

Btw, don't forget the mention of "Tim Conover" in Number Eight (T-H-L-K-D), done at roughly the same time as the Number Five edit, though at least that one doesn't mention sexual preference. (Hint: There is no WP article on anyone named "Tim Conover.")

Vandalism Uncorrected & Perp Unchecked for 2 Years & Counting …

Jon Awbrey

Go and revert it. If you dare ;-)

Wow. What a shitty edit. Way to go, Hell.

(pronounced "mock", like the Germanic name "Mauck")

Article doesn't mention how Peirce got his middle name. His parents didn't give it to them. It's actually a somewhat Awbrey-like pun in honor of William James, who arranged the lecture series noted, with pay. I didn't make this up.

I upkept the vandalism of an entire section out of an article, and it hasn't been restored for several months. I'm damned if I'm telling you what it is.



Also, you appear here:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Comparewikis.png

Seven months and 16 days...

It's unsettling what some people will do, using Wikipedia as a revenge platform against admins.

Pweeeze, Mister Sir, you can tell me!.......a private message, anything!


And a Wiki-esque lad he is, at that.

"'Ere, vinegar and black beer for me chips"


Heh.

Anthropologically, that's a very interesting portrait. See this for a possible direct ancestor.

I try to make a point of subtly (or not so subtly) vandalising at least one article every time I'm online. Hit "random article", and vandalise, as an IP. If you fix some grammar or spelling, you can get away with putting some amazing untruths in there. At a guess, 99% of my edits are still extant. I've been doing this for a couple of years now.

A Brit friend of mine told me of the vandalism to one of the lecturers at his university - I've tracked it down and I think it was the article on Phil Ineson (T-H-L-K-D) where someone introduced, in the place of the picture of a notable academic, a picture of a monkey. If it is the article I'm thinking of, it looks like the image went up with this edit on 14 April 2006, and lasted until this edit on 9 October of that year (when it was removed with an edit summary describing it as "dubious"), so just under six months in all.

It looks like the image has since been deleted, but I presume an admin could confirm that it is indeed said simian pic?

Five months one week?!? That's the best you could do?

We've been digging up defamatory vandalism that has lasted for years.

Get back to the drawing board.

It is. Cute little 'monkey'.

I added several things that have lasted over three years.

And yes, some of it is defamatory.

Not that it makes much difference, but the introduction of this image was a few edits earlier on 2006-04-14 by Plewis (T-C-L-K-R-D) , using file File:Utanbani3.gif and then File:PhilIneson.gif (both deleted), which are both the same monkey business originally obtained from http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~plewis/utanbani3.gif.

The story is somewhat more complicated than that — it always is in matters of Peirce — as it happens, all the best-loved Just-So stories were roundly recited on the Peirce List last year, and Ben Udell, by a bit of felicitous synchronicity, has just now recapped them on the new Peirce Blog.

Jon Awbrey

23.5 months at Porn 'n Chicken.

That's pretty long, yes.

I think you've got a couple of followers, called 'Hagger' and 'Fang' (both Harry Potter-related names, like Grawp) but unlike Grawp they're nowhere near as severe. I mean, you should know this from your talk page history.

I can barely look at this pic myself...

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/im.../4f/Bisanz9.jpg

How long do you suppose that image in that link would survive on Photobucket? You know they have an image-review policy there a bit like what WP should have.

Of course, they also have a business model which generates revenue to pay some reviewers someplace. And they must actually have some standards ... somewhere. Which they stick to... somehow. They don't pre-screen photos. But somebody sees what you put up, eventually.

Yes, they do.

Dunno, and don't care.
This is still on Photobucket, after more than a month.

Terrible edit. It's not necessary to fact tag bomb an article. We have section and article templates for that. That looks so terrible.

Lara, that diff is of the 48 edits other people made after the article had been vandalized that did not remove the vandalism. Yes, in the 2 years and 48 changes made, no one noticed that massive section of nonsense breaking the infobox.

"Bisanz9.jpg" is hosted on ED which proudly has no content standards or image review policy, full stop.

The "mega-icon-smiley-thumbs-up.jpg" is on photobucket. It is probably a copyright infringement, but photobucket doesn't care as long as there's no dick coming out of its forehead so it will there till the cows come home.


The "ć É é Í í Ĺ ĺ Ń ń Ó ó Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ú ú Ý ý Ź ź À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù  â Ĉ ĉ Ê ê Ĝ ĝ Ĥ ĥ Î î Ĵ ĵ Ô ô Ŝ ŝ Û û Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü Ÿ ÿ ß Ã ã Ẽ ẽ Ĩ ĩ Ñ ñ Õ õ Ũ ũ Ỹ ỹ Ç ç Ģ ģ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ Đ đ Ů ů Ǎ ǎ Č č Ď ď Ě ě Ǐ ǐ Ľ ľ Ň ň Ǒ ǒ Ř ř Š š Ť ť Ǔ ǔ Ž ž Ā ā Ē ē Ī ī Ō ō Ū ū Ȳ ȳ Ǣ ǣ ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ Ă ă Ĕ ĕ Ğ ğ Ĭ ĭ Ŏ ŏ Ŭ ŭ Ċ ċ Ė ė Ġ ġ İ ı Ż ż Ą ą Ę ę Į į Ǫ ǫ Ų ų Ḍ ḍ Ḥ ḥ Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ Ṃ ṃ Ṇ ṇ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ Ṣ ṣ Ṭ ṭ Ł ł Ő ő Ű ű Ŀ ŀ Ħ ħ Ð ð Þ þ Œ œ Æ æ Ø ø Å å Ə ə • {{Unicode|}}" went unnoticed because its only effect was to prevent the date appearing in the reference citing Joel Stein of Time magazine.

It didn't break the infobox which looked like this prior to your edit, so try to be less melodramatic.

Not the longest undealt with, but arguably the longest undealt with relative to the article's visibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=282606486

What is the over/under on how many people have that page on their watchlist?

Photobucket has no problem with bad language. They just don't like photos of nekkid peoples or (at least) anything that looks like porn. Now, don't ask me what "looks like porn" means.

--Pottering Stuart

"Looks like a typo"

Jon

It obviously is. Given the sheer number of monkeys that type on Wikipedia, the odds that "Obama" will be mispelled as "Hitler" are almost 1:1.

Luís Henrique

Here's a bit of funny that lasted for five days.

Never mind that the entire paragraph seems to be an original research rant without any outside sourcing. People like to use Wikipedia as a revenge platform against corporate overlords.

I've just found some vandalism that's on Wikipedia since 2005. It's in an article that's viewed around 2k times a day, and it includes the word "piss".