Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:


Courtsiding[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure what to do about the IP (hopper?) who keeps adding this unsourced information to the courtsiding article. What should I do? Thanks, Matty.007 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask for semi-protection (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) which should hopefully get the IP communicating - we can't have unsourced allegations against named living individuals in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that the additions are being made by an employee of Sporting Data, whose employee was the one detained and against whom the court case fell apart. I have gone to RPP. Thanks, Matty.007 19:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


Archieve[edit]

Hi! On which page are completed requests being archieved? Thanks. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that there is no archive: the entries here are all purely mechanical reports, and there's no discussion worth archiving. Just an endless succesion of IPs and usernames and "done" / "not done" icons. If there was something to discuss, this one would surely not be the right place for the report. Cambalachero (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection features a rolling seven-day archive of approved/denied requests. I imagine a similar process could be established for vandalism actions.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the archive can be useful when one has to report a similar case of vandelism as he (or someone else) has reported earlier. And also for research purpose about vandelism history of an IP/ group of IPs. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation[edit]

I want to confirm this is the noticeboard to request a user be blocked for intently vandalizing pages before I start using it; Administrator intervention against vandalism. Kevintampa5 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this is it, provided the reports follow the guidelines on the top of the page. Connormah (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What "recent" actually means revisited[edit]

The instructions at the top of this page link to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 9#What does recent actually mean?. The discussion was over five years ago and only four administrators commented, three of whom have subsequently been desysoped due to inactivity. I would like to revisit this question in order to determine the current consensus.

In my opinion, a simple "IPs must have vandalized in the last 24 hours" does not reflect major changes in internet connectivity since 2007. We have many more IP users who have static dedicated IPs or seldom-changing DSL IPs. If an IP has vandalized Wikipedia fifty times in the last two years (the last time being a week ago) with zero edits that appear to be from a different user, there is no reason not to give that IP a one-month or six-month block. On the other hand, an IP that vandalized dozens of times (including four times today) but has hundreds of recent constructive edits obviously from different users probably shouldn't be blocked at all. Basically what I am saying is that we should give more weight to the long-term history and less weight to what happened today. Otherwise, we give slow-but-steady vandals a break. Fortunately for us, most vandals are stupid, but some are clever and will adapt their vandalism to whatever we don't block. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. However, when we are dealing with persistent vandalism coming from one "educational" institution, it is clear that many different users are involved: the vandals and the serious editors.
I have always held the belief that everyone should register: we all have email addresses, don't we? Why an admin. would want to spend his/her time checking on legit edits from an IP, rather than quash the vandals, is beyond me. Therefore, block the institution if it becomes necessary. Those who legitimately wish to contribute will do so after registering. Do the others really matter? I don't think so. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
May I assume that you came to that opinion based upon the history of the IP address over at least a few months, and not just on the last 24 hours? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've kept track of enough IP vandals as a result of saving them to my watch list over a period of time until they are blocked—and, even then, continue to keep them on the watch list in case they re-appear. So, I know that, while there are periods where no vandalism takes place, legitimate editing does continue until vandalism re-appears because it is reported.
Now, the balance of "good" versus "bad" edits may well be in favour of the "good", but that is no reason not to block the entire IP for four pieces of vandalism in one day which have been appopriately warned. One must follow the protocol, but often this does not happen. A "final warning" is ignored, but no one then files a complaint with the admins. More vandalism then takes place: again no new series of warnings is issued. Too many bots post warnings without anyone personally bothering to look at the history.
Therefore, the time-frame is irrelevant to me. If the "bad" keeps happening, then block the IP. A genuine editor will register. If not, how much can we really lose??? Maybe quite a bit, but that is better than the obscenities, infantile nonsense, deliberate changes ("King Philip" becoming "Justin Beiber" throughout an article), etc., etc. which pervades WP far too often. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It remains the case that the overwhelming majority of users use dynamic IPs. Sysops can and do treat IPs different if an IP looks like it's not dynamic and if there's a lengthy patter of abuse. There's nothing that needs to be changed. Snowolf How can I help? 17:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Serious vandalism?[edit]

Is there a way to report serious, multi-page vandalism? Like, a way of giving it top-priority or something? Dustin (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Like that IP user from a second ago. Dustin (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The IRC channels !admin function might be of use of that. Active admins tend to lurk there, and if it's particularly obvious that it's vandalism, would be happy to block them for you. Linky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help/clickthrough (Note that !admin pings ALL admins in the channel. So make sure that it is serious, else just do a regular message.) Tutelary (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay; you can just look in this talk page's history, and you can see that the same IP came off to this very talk page during its rampage (and it was a rampage the way I see it; I have never dealt with this much vandalism from a single user at once till now). I sure have learned how useful it is to have my newly acquired rollback rights. (Just look at my contributions for about this time) Thanks for the suggestion. I don't know what you mean specifically by !admin, but I'll try to look into it. Dustin (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see the particularly egregious vandalism. Anywho, what I was meaning by the !admin function is that !admin is a command in the IRC channel that when typed and entered pings all admins in that channel. So if I type '!admin There is this one IP user vandalizing about 10 different talk pages with variants of 'fat nigger', could some admin take a look? XLINKHERE' It would ping the admins to that statement, and they'd take a look and probably block the IP or protect pages if there are a barrage of vandalistic edits towards one page. Tutelary (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense... we don't have to say anything about this, but I think I by coincidence saw you on another page earlier today. In any case, thanks for the instructions. Maybe next time, I won't have to constantly revert vandalism before the situation is handled (although rollback is pretty much instantaneous). Dustin (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)