Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 11

Where is the right place?

At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=212853633&oldid=212853280

someone removed my entry because it 'would be the wrong place here'.

So where is the right place? The reported IP removed content from an article with the explanation it would have been unsourced or original research. But in fact he removed the text of a link and the link that was in the article unchallenged for a long time. (And originally not added by me.)

This removing from this "anonymous" editor happened to a site with very low number of editors for months. But it occured after a change from an admin some hours before.

Interestingly, this anonymous edit removed any connection in the article to the content that was before removed by that admin.

The article is "Sarah_Wiener" on the English wikipedia.

SO: Where is the "right place"?

It's clearly vandalism to remove content without valid explanation. 82.113.106.16 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The talk page of the article would be a great place to start. Not for "reporting", of course, but for discussing. The IP's talk page might be another. --barneca (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First thing I did was to write on the person's User-Page of that admin. Without answering and without any explanation in the edit summary he reverted the page. To ask an "anonymous" IP if it's used in a malicious way to hide one's identity doesn'T seem to be a idea likely to have any success, does it? :P

Beside here it's the same thing. The person who said this would not be the "right place" didn't give any answer. But if I would readd the request to the page, I'm sure he would remove it again.

Especially sad about that article is that the manipulation is very likely not primarily triggered by Users who are fans or people in any way interested in the article's person, but rather people who try to suppress information about the animal mistreatment for Foie Grass product. Searching in the Foie Grass article and related articles will bring up many similiar bad behaviour where any criticism is deleted, and the authors of any kind of criticisms are insulted with foul words.

So: The reason I suspect the admin who seems to be from Germany initially edited the article is one of the commons downfalls of wikipedia: Admins who are just to easily ready to support any friend or comrade they made, regardless if the admin has any real own knowledge or interest in the topic of the article.

That sort of failure is often mentioned on wikipedia for years now. Even on Mr. J. Wales talk page. It's always the same for years.

82.113.121.16 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

IP Address Block Question

I'm using "block" in the networking sense here - there's a block of IPs being used for alternating vandalism edits on (for now) Guns N' Roses (note edits by .185, .186, and .188). Any advice how to deal with this would be appreciated.  Frank  |  talk  21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you pretty much have three choices:

• Report all of the addresses to WP:AIV stating that they are all being used to vandalize the same article. This method has the advantage of being quick and easy, not just for you, but also the admin processing your AIV report.
• Request at WP:RFPP that the page in question be protected in order to prevent the vandalism. This method is the simplist.
• Report to WP:AN/I that a range of IPs need to be blocked, and include a lot of diffs as evidence.

Good luck! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As it happens, the disruptive edits stopped right about as I asked the question, so at this point, no particular action is appropriate. Still, it's nice to know what the options are; it seems a slightly unusual case. Regards -  Frank  |  talk  01:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't put my report on the regular page

So here it is:

[[1]] aka [[2]] aka talk) aka. (talk) continues to abuse Dave Zirin and Banned substances in baseball -- Doesn't care his edits are not POV - Will not discuss on talk page - Has been making these edits for a month now on various IPs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor437 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User: LIZZYYYYY

This user created a page (ThsRedSkyBreaks) which I tagged as db-nonsense, but I can't warn the user on the talk page (User talk:LIZZYYYYY), as it says the page title is blacklisted. I have never run into this before and I'm not sure what to do. —BradV 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —BradV 20:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify for other readers here, a run of really mindless vandalism (heartbreakingly, the person behind it thinks s/he's being clever) has led to a tightening of the blacklist so that certain pages cannot be created. This is sort-of intentional, but impacts on you if you wish to warn or welcome a new user. For the time being, the best we can offer appears to be "report it to an admin" and let admins make the warning etc. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

What's the order to insert your report? Latest at the bottom (like AN) or latest at the top like Requested moves? I put my report at the top; but others did the opposite. I'm sorry if I was wrong, but it would be smart to insert a hidden comment on the editing page explaining this. Thanks. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom, if you'd be so kind! Pedro :  Chat  15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally on Wikipedia, assume that you need to put stuff at the bottom of a page, unless the page tells you otherwise. But perfection is not something people here assume (in theory), so the world doesn't come to a stop if you get it wrong. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, when working here, I start at the bottom of the list anyway, to minimize the edit conflicts I get with other admins all reviewing the same case at the same time. So as Redvers says, it doesn't matter too much. --barneca (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do that too. Of course, if too many of us take that approach, it defeats the purpose. :) Doczilla _STOMP! 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I start in the middle ..... :) Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And I look at any registered users first, wherever they are in the list. I guess we all have our own way of doing it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Using multiple approaches is best in this case. It lowers the odds of simultaneously working on the same one. Sometimes when it looks like several admins are busy working on reports, I'll quickly remove the one I'm working on and post an edit summary which says, "removing while I investigate". Doczilla _STOMP! 00:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So long as you make the report, I don't think it really matters... board moves too fast to worry about these things, and it should be as easy and quick as possible to make a report, anyway. :) That said, adding to the bottom is probably easiest, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you're reporting manually, almost the only possible way to do it without 85 edit conflicts is to use the "+" button to add a "section" to the bottom. Unfortunately, you have to do so with a blank edit summary, or else a heading also shows up. --barneca (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I report this person?

He/she has created the same page three times, apparently. This user has been warned three times. Should I report him/her? Lunakeet 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly reasonable. An admin will look into the matter more closely to see if it merits a block, but that certainly merits a report. --Masamage ♫ 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't Call Me Baby

There's a user there who continually vandalizes the page with this title. It's the user with the following IP: 69.17.152.178.

Hyperzoanoid (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't edited since May 27. If/when they vandalize again, warn them, then report to AIV (the main page, not this Talk page_) and admins will look at the case. -- Alexf⁴² 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Range Block

Just did my first Range block on an active vandal, some one please see User talk:195.158.104.0/24 and see if I could have done something differently. Jeepday (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with connexion

Hi! I Have some problem to connect at Wikipedia. I can't acces to wikipedia. I'don't know the reason. I say to french admistrator, because i edit lot of in wikipedia french language. Please resolve this problem.I must change my computer ton acces to wikipidia. Excuse me but my english is basic. Thank'you.--Great11 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No problems at the moment that I'm aware of. You can check (and edit) this site to see if others are reporting problems with Wikimedia servers. Je sais sans problèmes à l'heure actuelle. Vous pouvez vérifier (et changement) ce site pour voir si d'autres personnes sont des problèmes de reportage avec des sites de Wikimedia. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistent problem with vandal

I had a persistent problem with a vandal on Conrad Black. I complained several times to have the article semi-protected, but the admins were not convinced, I guess. Can't complain here because you only block IP addresses and he changes IP addresses.

I am not a major contributor to the article. The vandal is now vandalizing my user page which is no big deal, but I am sick of it. I will remove the article from my watchlist.

Admins have really picked up controlling vandals in the past 8 months or so. But this guy is completely out of control and I can see no way of getting help. I am going to let someone else handle it. Student7 (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's accusation of vandalism

The edits he is basing his accusation on are not vandalisms. They revolve around a fake quote. I provided proof of this from sources people like Orangemarlin would never question (namely Panda's Thumb and Wikiquote), but apparently these people are far more concerned with promoting their POV and threatening anyone and everyone who opposes that POV than with facts. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have twice attempted to ask Orangemarlin about this and both times he falsely referred to my questions as "uncivil" and deleted them without replying. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've asked them about this here, let's see if there's any luck from that. Steve Crossin (contact) 05:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't hold your breath. OM has a serious chip on his shoulder against me and anyone else who opposes his POV. I expect continued silence. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And I am proven correct. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the material in question was misattribution, not inaccuracy -- the correct remedy would have been to correct the attribution, not wholesale removal. See Talk:Phillip E. Johnson‎#Johnson quote for more details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you people asleep on the job?

This piece of vandalism stayed up for over an hour, and would have stayed up even longer except I was curious to see what pages were using Image:Devil-goat.jpg. C'mon, vandalfighters, you can do better than that. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Show us how it's done. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Job"? Damn, is anyone else getting a paycheck? Tan | 39 12:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not? Hiberniantears (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the "stock-option" plan. Tan | 39 13:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:83.70.253.47

Would Tanthalas39 care to explain how a user who constantly adds a channel that closed down over 10 years ago to a list of channels that are currently available or soon to become available on Sky Digital in the UK and Ireland is not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the article? The user has been warned on many seperate occasions not to do this but still continues to do so even after being given a final warning. They do not even provide a source for their 'information'. It does not fall under what vandalism is not. Jasmeet 181 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't care to explain, I think it's pretty obvious that this isn't blatant vandalism or a case for AIV. Jasmeet reported this twice and then brought it here. If anyone else wants to step in and endorse/overturn this decision, feel free; I don't have strong feelings about this. Tan | 39 20:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a simple content dispute to me, but this question belongs elsewhere. —Travis^talk 20:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tan - this board is for reporting obvious vandalism. I take that as being any edit which can clearly be seen as vandalism by any editor without need for knowledge of the subject matter. Edits such as this do not fall into this criteria. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Tan. You are expecting a degree of prior knowledge on a subject to make a determination; this runs against the requirement of "blatant vandalism" - vandalism obvious to the non expert. I am from the UK and have Sky, but because of my commitment to an online encyclopedia I haven't the best ideas of what channels are operating outside of my particular interests.

Obviously, there are warnings given and it can be that a sysop will block on the basis of "vandalism past final warning" - but again there is the question of whether the vandalism is blatant enough... also (and how should I put this?) factions in an edit war may drop a series of warnings on an editors page and then go complaining to AIV, with the caveat that the "vandal" is blanking warnings, to procure a block of an editor for their own purposes. I have been caught by this, and do not wish to do the same again. This is why the term "blatant" is used both in the page instructions, and in my response. Blocking people (and that is what is behind those little characters up on the screen) is a serious matter, and something that most admins quite rightly do not take lightly.

Short answer; it is a big website and, because of the nature of it, there is always going to be "wrong" with it and thus admins are only going to act when they are absolutely certain of the situation. We want to get it right and not become part of the wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The example given by Tivedshambo is perhaps not the clearest example, even if the channel has never existed in the UK. Here the user tries to show that a channel closed in 1998 coming back, they get told that it isn't and the edit in undone or to provide a source. Again the user adds it and it is reverted. Only to happen again. The user also adds it to other pages and recieves similar warnings, such as this, this, this and this. The user continues to add it to List of channels on Sky Digital in the UK and Ireland and then begins to add other non-existant channels such as this or this. They also then add stuff like this and this despite charts only being compliled once every 7 days. I myself am unsure about most of the other content that 83.70.253.47 has edited as I have little or no knowledge of those other subjects but clearly their work on televison channels and music charts are at least unconstructive and don't appear to be in good faith. Jasmeet 181 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And what everyone is trying to tell you is that this noticeboard is for "get[ting] administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only." This is clearly not obvious and blatant vandalism like blanking pages or adding profanities, and thus should be brought up at WP:AN/I, not here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for that Gonzo_fan2007. I did not realise that this was the wrong section. Jasmeet 181 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome and it's all good! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Clock?

Would anyone else find a clock helpful on the main AIV page? i.e. to show the time the page was last refreshed... Ian Cairns (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about the idea (I tend to reload the page if there's any question of timeliness), but a subtle note might not be too bad if people find it useful. First thought I'd have would be slipping it next to the current purge link, something like so:

Page last updated ''{{#time: H:i, j F Y}} (UTC)''. '''{{purge|Purge the cache of this page}}''' if it is out of date.

Which would generate:

Page last updated 01:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC). if it is out of date.

So maybe? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with it; I usually only look at the vandals listed there and probably only ever have to click purge once every four hours. — E ↗^TCB 08:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and added it; either nobody disagrees, or those who would haven't noticed the discussion. We'll see shortly, I suppose? :p – Luna Santin (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just the job!! Many thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see its already been placed on the AIV page, but I'm going to comment anyway;-) I really don't think its helpful, or at least helpful for most people, however I don't see any harm in having it:-) Also, I guess some people will find it helpful, so keep it.--SJP (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Keep.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to an article that had not been noticed for nearly two months

I just reverted vandalism made back in May! Is that common, i.e. for nonsense/hoax vandalism to go unnoticed and unreverted for so long? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

On minor subjects like that, it does happen from time to time because nobody is watching those articles. I've found months-old nonsense vandalism, usually on things like extremely tangential Star Wars articles or really obscure Revolutionary War figures. Too many people create an article and then either don't bother to watchlist it or - maybe even more often - never edit Wikipedia again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)not the first time i've seen this, won't be the last, sometimes these just slip through the cracks, edits to unwatched pages which get missed at recent changes. perhaps reason for allowing trusted users to see special:unwatched--Jac16888 (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. Usually I find and revert vandalism that is not that old, so this one was a bit of a wake up call that has me wondering what all else do we have that is not true but is maybe not as obvious? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole project and lots of article to check that looks at what is "not true but is maybe not as obvious?" over at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, we find some bizarre stuff. Your welcome to come take a look at a few articles. Jeepday (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

John Paul Young

Can someone take a look at this? Something's not right. I'm getting "AVRIL LAVIGNE ROKZ MY SOCKZ!" in blue lettering and then "Brought to you by The Avril Troll - On return from Wikibreak!" in red lettering in the bottom right hand corner of the page. It seems to be some sort of overlay on the page. It doesn't seem to be the work of someone editing the page as it doesn't show up in any of the revisions! I have never seen this type of vandalism before so I was unsure what to do when I saw it - so sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. - Erebus555 (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Weird. It's gone now though. There was some oddball mistake in the infobox template that I removed (an extra pipe), but that was all I saw. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still there on the page Ne-Yo. Maybe somebody vandalized a template? 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And also ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem on ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead went away, after I made an edit and removed few lines (img_capt etc. in the infobox). When I the added the content back again, the problem doesn't appear again. But Ne-Yo is protected, can somebody just make a dummy edit and see if the problem disappears. Strange! 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniel fixed it. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Help:Dummy edit :) Daniel (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's false blaming

I spotted a vandalism and Wikipedia blamed me. I never vandalised the Paul McCartney's page (my IP below). But in history my IP has been written down as vandalism. Please respond this message as soon as possible to username User:Ahmadiskandarshah. And remember, I DID NOT VANDALIZED THE PAGE.124.82.61.100 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You the person may not have, but that IP did vandalize. I checked the edit history, and there were two edits on 19 March 2008. Diffs are at User talk:124.82.61.100. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pirate song

For some reason, a pirate song keeps being added on random pages by multiple anonymous IP addresses. I keep deleting them on huggle, but they keep coming and coming. I don't know what all that is about, but if someone could try and fix it, it would be great. Note that I am placing this report on this page because there is no way to report it on the page itself.

Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs, so we can see what you're talking about? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the correct place to report something like that is WP:ANI. If it were user-specific, you could report it here; article-specific, WP:RPP to request page protection; but if it's multiple IPs and multiple articles, the administrators' incidents noticeboard would be where to report it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think it would be reasonable to report each new IP at WP:AIV without giving a new set of warnings since they're obviously the same person or set of people. You would want to explain though or it won't be clear that they've already seen the warnings. delldot talk 22:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. A vandalism description like "another pirate song vandal - see AIV talk page" would explain quickly that it's a recurrent problem. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Essay of potential interest

I've written an essay, Wikipedia:Vandalism does not matter (title chosen for punch rather than representativeness). I'd be most interested in hearing responses from admins and my fellow vandal-fighters if anyone is interested. Solidarity, Skomorokh 13:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead on the money. Although I think that you don't give enough credit to auto-confirmation limits on uploads, page moves, and insertion of links without capchas. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

92.43.64.69

Why was my complaint against 92.43.64.69 dropped, he's been vandalizing for 4 months and has made no constructive edits, just because its a shared IP, it should still be blocked if it's vandalising. The edit summary said there was no recent vandalism, well actually I personally have reverted 2 of his edits just this week, 1 of them today which is what prompted the request, so I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 09:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It was removed with an explanation here. It's a school IP, so there is a high chance the IP can be different people, or even a group of people. -- RyRy (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, has no warnings since 18 July (as of this writing). -- Alexf⁴² 09:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to block, get rid of multiple vandal scum with 1 block and actually just got a warning of me after 2 unconstructive edits to Highfields School, both were reverted by me and I believe 1 more edit to the same page reverted by someone else Highfields (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We prefer to block IPs and users when appropriate and while their active. ;) No use blocking if they are inactive since they won't start vandalizing again soon. Blocks are issued to stop someone from vandalizing, and a block is not a punishment (which in this case, you are asking to block this IP for vandalizing about 2 weeks ago, which sounds like a punishment). If a vandal is inactive and has stopped vandalizing, no block is needed since they have stopped, and that's what matters most. -- RyRy (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not inactive, his last vandalism was 2 hours ago - Highfields (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I've just realized he only did 1 vandalism and the same person with a differant IP did the other 2, either way he's still a vandal and is still active Highfields (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Only one? Generally not enough to issue a block now, IMO. And again, the IP is inactive since you said the last vandal edit was two hours ago. IMO, about two hours with no edits is enough to say that someone is "inactive". -- RyRy (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, 1 recently, still has a unstable history and has clearly come back to carry on, this is the same as the 2 previous blocks, what's the problem, anyway I go to sleep at night and work most days, does that mean I can vandalise now and go to work and get away with it because I've been inactive for 2 hours, what a stupid policy! Highfields (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Blocking IP addresses. IP addresses are only blocked when they have significant recent activity. A slow trail of disruption is not significant activity. Blocking is a preventative measure, used only when absolutely necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• It appears the user in question has set up an account, User:HighfieldsTruth, but I'm going to drop this because I suppose you're right but I think we need to be tough on vandals, blocking to punish and to prevent further vandalism, in the future Highfields (talk) (contribs) 10:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is never a punishment, and it will probably never will be, IMHO. Thanks. RyRy (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is an edit dispute ongoing in the Highfields School article between Highfields and the IP/HighfieldsTruth. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just blanked a page twice. Blocked. -- Alexf⁴² 13:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

When does WP:GAME get applied?

I have several articles watchlisted where an IP vandal is in a slow but persistent vandalism mode. There's nothing positive about their contributions, always simply vandalism, but the rate is usually a a few a day, and they always stop just short of the "final warning". I can't report here to AIV, because I always get the same old "vandal not active" response, so I need to ask, when does WP:GAME apply to these situations? These are IP vandals who know aren't dynamic (or don't had their IP address refreshed fairly often), and it's always the same article, with no other contributions elsewhere. They how to play the game, getting slapped on the wrist, but they know they can get away with it, since nothing ever seems to be done. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The "official" response, I believe, is "report it to ANI". But if I'm looking at an AIV report and the reporter has gone to the trouble of pointing out such gaming, I'm not averse (adverse?) to dealing with it here, rather than pawning you off to ANI. The trick, IMHO, is for you to do a little of the legwork, and point out specific proof it's the same person gaming the system (e.g. "same article vadalized over past week", or "same type of vandalism each time", or even, if it's clear, "always vandalizes up to a level-4 warning, and always starts back up again 3 days later"). The main reason things need to be short and sweet and blatantly obvious at AIV is because there are so many reports, we'd drown in them if complicated cases needing lots of investigation were allowed to clog the gears up. But if you do a lot of the legwork yourself, I don't think a whole lot of admins would decline to deal with it. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) AIV is really for reporting urgent, obvious, on-going vandalism that needs immediate administrator attention. You have other options though: you could make a report, with supporting evidence, on WP:ANI; if the vandalism is to a certain page, you could request page semi-protection at WP:RFPP; or there's WP:AN3 if they're revert-warring (even a slow-burning revert war falls foul of the spirit of WP:3RR). There's no requirement for a level 4 vandalism warning before action is taken - long-term patterns of disruptive editing or gaming the system is eminently blockable. Common sense prevails, as Barneca has demonstrated rather nicely ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As Barneca suggested, make sure your report indicates this is a recurring problem (I haven't looked). I personally would recommend you try to phrase it so that you can easily paste it over to WP:ANI in the event it's declined here. If the same pages are getting hit repeatedly, semi-protection may be an option (WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, or here works fine, just need a list of pages); if not, it may be worth building (or being ready to build) a list of involved IPs in preparation to consider rangeblock(s) if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

how'd he get my IP address?

Hi.

This user just reported me. Thing is, he gave my IP address. How in the world did he do that? Isn't one of the points of having an account that you can't be physically traced, in case your views are unpopular in your community? kwami (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I suspect you had best contact WP:OVERSIGHT to have it removed from the edit history. I shall make a discreet enquiry at WP:ANI regarding your concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Err, you've got it listed under the heading Alias on your user page? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Yeah, sorry, I just noticed that. It's an old address, and so irrelevant for me now. I'd forgotten it was there. kwami (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.234.188.136 )

That user has been warned several times, including a final warning, for inserting spam links. He has continued to do so despite these warnings, please, please, please delete that account. He's very prolific. He is a film reviewer, and is constantly inserting links to his own articles. He also has his own wikipedia page, written by himself, (conflict of interest), here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer) ) which as you can see has been expanded to ridiculous proportions. I think this page is a strong candidate for deletion, or at very least severe editing down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenEdmondson (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (StevenEdmondson (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

Edit: Sorry, I've edited out most of the irrelevant info for Dan Schneider's page.

Still, he'll just undo it. ip ban please. He has been warned four or five times already. And has continued on. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

Wow. Just at a glance, this article appears to have been created legitimately, but maintained by a series of SPA's (and possible sockpuppets). Check out the contributions of Cop 666 (talk · contribs), Mitziohara (talk · contribs), Mathemaxi (talk · contribs), Vester99 (talk · contribs), Nightnipper (talk · contribs), Lyledag (talk · contribs), Wallaby Jones (talk · contribs), and Corinthiani (talk · contribs). All of them seem to exist only to edit this writer's article and insert his links into other pages. This seems like a matter for admin attention. Dayewalker (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Complex vandalism

I know were're not supposed to report complex vandalism here, but I have an issue with another editor on Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations who refused to edit according to policy and continues to create POV and content forks. See the history of satanic ritual abuse in *T*he Netherlands, satanic ritual abuse in *t*he Netherlands, for those with access to deleted contributions, the history of satanic ritual abuse *and* the Netherlands. The current pages includes the List of satanic ritual abuse allegations, and the most specific sections of the talk page are here (but long) and here (more recent and shorter). Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to getting only his version put on mainspace. An AN posting came to nothing, with no contributions from outside editors. So I'm pretty much tapped out of ideas - is it a matter of re-posting on AN until a response shows up? I've been editing here for 2 years now, with 27,000 edits, so I like to think I know what I'm doing. I've referred to policies and guidelines, I've compromised and adjusted mainspace when issues have been pointed out on the talk page. But I have *no* idea what to do now. WLU (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reports and Responses

No offense but what in the hell is wrong with you people why aren't you giving me a chance to respond to the report, Instead of deleting it right away wait at least a 1/2 hour to see if the person making the report would like to further comment. The user in question that I reported is a blatent vandal, 3RR violator and is prone to placing inaccurate information in Wikipedia and yet you see no problems with this??? Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Replying on user's talk page. --barneca (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note the user who started this thread has since been blocked, I gather due to an edit war they were involved in, during which they seem to have submitted a report here. As far as answering their question, it seems the report as listed wasn't suited to this page; reports which need time and/or discussion should generally be taken to WP:AN/I or another appropriate forum. This particular page is very fast-moving and should generally not be used for complex situations. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

31 hours

I see people being blocked for 31 hours. What's the deal with the number 31? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that many contributors edit consistently at the same time of the day, adding the 7 hours (i.e. a morning, or afternoon, or evening session) it effectively creates a 2 session block period. You will note that the 55 standard period is the same 48 hour + 7 hours principle. I understand the rationale is that a vandal will not come back 24 hours later to resume the disruption, but is not so long as to deter a good faith editor who transgressed after being warned. Anyhow, that is the basis on which I use them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[ec] My theory: 24 is a number that vandals expect. The thought of "Well, I'll just come back the same time tomorrow" is met with frustration when they do so and find that they're still blocked. An additional seven hours pushes them into a totally different part of the day, one that they're likely doing other things during (such as homework or dinner or whatever). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"The user must be active now"

One of the guidelines of this page is that "The user must be active now.". Some admins interpret this strictly; others less so. My problem is that if a repeat vandal is based in Australia or New Zealand, then I only find out about their vandalism hours later (because I sleep), and some admins then won't take action against them because of this guideline. It seems to me that one of the following should be adopted:

• There should be a new page called something like Administrator intervention against slightly stale vandalism where we can report vandalism that's a few hours old, keeping the current page for the vandals on a spree.
• The guideline should be changed to "The user must be active now or have been active in the last few hours".
• For repeat vandals (i.e. blocked at least twice), the "must be active now" guideline should not apply.

I'm rather frustrated with repeat vandals getting away with it time after time. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Administrator intervention against slightly stale vandalism" is WP:ANI - the place to report longer-term vandalism that isn't happening right now.
• "...active in the last few hours" doesn't help with IP addresses, which may have changed in the last few hours.
• "For repeat vandals..." doesn't help with IP addresses, which may have changed users in the last few hours/days/months.

You may have a point with named users who are sporadically vandalising, but again you should take this to WP:ANI where there is space and time for people to look over the contributions and come to a consensus on longer blocking vs continued attempts at education.

If you've become frustrated by vandalism, it's time to take a break from vandalhunting. Wikipedia is a hobby, something to do for fun. If it starts to frustrate you, then it is no longer fun. Better take a break from the frustrating aspect now (especially if you are stressed over vandalism from several hours ago) rather than burning out completely - we don't want to lose an encyclopedia writer for the sake of vandals. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about users "being active now", or IPs? If it's the latter, we must stick to that rule; an IP can be controlled by a vandal one minute, and a productive editor the next, so any downtime between vandalistic edits could very well denote that we're dealing with someone new. If it's a user, however, I'm all for nailing them to the wall forever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the instructions to indicate that "active now" applies to unregistered users only. Hut 8.5 19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it should be account rather than user or ip; AIV is the emergency quick response page for ongoing vandalism. Currently inactive users can be discussed at WP:ANI, as can an IP that appears stable (vandalising the same article(s) over a period). Stale non-stable ip's should be ignored. Sometimes, as when the page is backlogged, it would be inappropriate to report user vandalism that is an hour old.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be "account". The purpose is to prevent future vandalism. If someone creates an account and makes 30 vandal edits but doesn't get caught for some reason at that point, that doesn't matter... There's a sufficiently high likelihood that the next edit will also be vandalism and a block should be applied to prevent that vandalism. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly they should blocked, but they should be blocked following a report to ANI, not here. This page is for urgent cases. --Tango (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is for complex or non-obvious cases, not simple vandalism. There is no need for a thread to discuss whether the user should be blocked if the vandalism is blatant. Hut 8.5 11:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Block helper script

Copied from WP:AN

I've been working on a block script for quite some time (after DerHexer's script regretfully stopped working, actually), but I've just now gotten around to posting about it here. Some of the specifics of working and installing it are available here; if you have any bugs, requests, or anything else worth mentioning about it, feel free to tell me. Please note that this script has only been tested in Firefox. Yours, —Animum (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

How does this work? I mean, I see a place for bot reported vandalism and user reported. If a vandal is issued a full set of four warnings, does that get bot reported? Unschool (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on who reverts them after they go past four warnings. If it's a bot, then yes, otherwise no. Bots aren't sufficiently intelligent to spot all vandalism. Hut 8.5 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But do I correctly understand you to say that the bots do see our warnings and count them? Unschool (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In theory, yes. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 07:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Making a listing

I see the vandals listed like this:

Blibliblabla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

and I'm wondering if I'm supposed to list them like this, and if so, how do I do it? Is this just something that administrators do? If so, why would an administrator list a vandal here at all, why wouldn't they just go ahead and block them? Unschool (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you click "edit this page" on AIV, you'll find handy hidden instructions to guide you, which give you the templates that expand to the userlinks you mentioned above: {{IPvandal|IP address}}, {{Vandal|username}} and {{Userlinks|username}}. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 07:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try it later. Unschool (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient recent activity to justify a block...

" Insufficient recent activity to justify a block, but worth keeping an eye on. " [3]
I don't see how this does not justify a block. If you vandalize a page 5 times in a row, you get blocked, but if you vandalize a page 4 times, eat lunch and vandalize again it's okay. This happened to me numerous times in the past, could someone tell me the rational behind this? If there isn't any, this could be a vandal's greatest weapon, vandalize Wikipedia every Saturday when your buddies are over and keep laughing at templated messages that say "this is your final warning". My suggestion is block him for a few months until the jokes get dry. -- penubag  (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an IP address. We have to tread lighter around them as we don't know who is behind it the address, how often the person changes, how often the address changes, how new they are to the wiki ideal and so forth. A few months' block is therefore something we would only do with extreme reluctance and in extreme circumstances. And even then, we'd leave loopholes to let legitimate editors in. It's part of the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit" thing we bang on about. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally I take a position akin to Redvers' unless I have some reason not to -- the key questions, usually, are whether it's the same user or someone else, and whether a block might risk collateral damage. In this specific case, it looks to me like it's very likely the same person or a friend of theirs, returning several times over the past week, and I see no obvious evidence the IP might be shared. I'd favor a block for about a week or so, personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Whois tells me it's most likely the same guy, so in situations like this one, I'd support a month long block. -- penubag  (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

IP attempting to impersonate a user account

Twice now, similar IP addresses have made rants on my page (due to my elimination of unsourced material from an article) and then attempted to make it look like their comments/editing was done by a registered user's account. [4] [5] What is the method/procedure for dealing with that type of impersonation? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You block them.   jj137 (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a remark. Could it be that this user accidentally made an edit when he was not logged on, and later decided to replace his IP-address with his real name? I have seen it been done (and did it myself) a few times as well. No big deal. DVdm (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, perhaps not in this case. DVdm (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the case, this time, but that is a good possibility to bear in mind, when people switch around signatures. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me to be exactly what's going on. Here's the account making an edit to The Game (Queen album) 1. Here's one of the IPs in question, reverting the removal of the material the account added previously 2. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... good point. Shame on me for missing that. Ideally someone should log in before resigning, to clear up any ambiguity. Then again, the plot thickens with Greg denying any association with the IP. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The plot thickens indeed. It is possible someone Greg knows is trying to get him in trouble; I've been the target of such attempted impersonation (for example: 1, for those can see deleted contribs). The only way I see to either confirm or deny would be a CU. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In whatever circumstances, The IP address is now claiming to be two registered users

• [6]
• [7] -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Overzealous

Is this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Slutzker) just an isolated incident or is overzealious vandal patrol getting to be a habit. We have three editors ganging up on a new editor [8] who is clearly trying to start an article that is well with in WP:N. One of the acts of vandalism reported was adding a hang on tag [9] another edit was to revert improvements to the article (adding a reference) [10]. Jeepday (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the notability, but it certainly looks like a couple of editors ganging up on a newbie. I'd say their efforts have not only been overzealous, but also misguided: at one point, the author blanked the page [11] which would indicate his desire to have it deleted as G7, and even that was reverted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just a tad, eh? WP:BITE, WP:BITE, WP:BITE. I've replaced all the crazy nasty warnings with a welcome and apology. Hopefully we haven't lost a good new contributor. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread at WP:ANI may be in order. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I let a couple of those involved know about this discussion. RxS (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've revoked Jonathan's rollbacker rights. Reverting 5 times like that is incredibly inappropriate (and then voting keep on the AFD?). Mr.Z-man 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, bad display of WP:BITE. RxS (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly, a month or two ago Jonathan criticized me for biting an anon newcomer. When I tried to tell him that he was overreacting, he posted a Wikiquette alert on me and templated me for making a personal attack on him. I think removing rollback privileges for him is quite appropriate. He seems too immature to handle that tool. Ward3001 (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have sufficed if you had simply said that you agree with the removal of rights. The rest of your comment was, IMHO, an unnecessary and petty jab. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left messages for those concerned. I don't see the need for an WP:AN/I thread unless the editors in question make a habit of ganging up on people, depending on their responses. I too felt the "keep" took some nerve, after all that went before. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• In retrospect I see that I together with a few others handled the situation with unecessary zeal and forcefulness. To assuage the situation, and more importantly to convince the user to return to wikipedia, i've offered a proposal for adoption. I hope that we can all overcome this unfortunate incident and continue to contribute and improve the encyclopedia --Superflewis^(talk) 05:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Un-sustained vandalism

Ok, I'm wonder whether to report the IP 170.91.5.4 (talk · contribs). He recently vandalised and since he had a histroy of vandalising, I gave him an uw-vand4. However, his last vandalism warning was about a year ago. Should I report or see how it goes? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Last warning was a year ago because the IP's been blocked since Dec 2007. Don't report for now, since their latest edit was to revert some of their own vandalism from a couple of days ago. Frankly, a {{schoolblock}} is likely, but let's see what happens; maybe they'll surprise me. --barneca (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hesitantcy to Block Users

I'm curious, it appears sometimes that admins are hesitant to block users even when they've been sufficiently warned and have a long history of vandalism. When someone has already received their final warning and been told they will be blocked the next time they vandalize, why are they given another warning instead? My most recent example is 194.83.68.239 and this reason the report was removed. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind this so I know if I'm reporting people who shouldn't be.--Flash176 (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a stale report; the final warning was from two days ago. As it's an IP that belongs to a school, it's likely a completely different person making the edits. We'll assume a bit of good faith and give them a couple more chances before a block is necessary. GlassCobra 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Let's go on a little journey together. Picture if you will, a computer in a library at a university. Hundreds of people sit down at that computer. Occasionally, one of them edits a Wikipedia article. Some of those people make good, beneficial edits: [12], or at least good-faith attempts at improving an article: [13]. Being a frequently used public computer, sometimes an asshole sits down and does this: [14].

We don't block this IP address for long periods of time because we don't gain as much in prevention of assholery as we lose in beneficial edits. Now, IP addresses can be blocked for extended periods if the vandalism is frequent, daily vandalism for many weeks, returns after every single block expiration, or if the pattern of edits shows that the IP is used by a single person to vandalise over many days. However, this IP address you cite in this case meets none of those situations. The IP is obviously shared, there are lots of beneficial edits mixed in with the vandalism, and the vandalism happens about 1 or 2 days a month, and sometimes goes 3-4 months between bad edits. So yes, admins DO block IP addresses for long periods of time if the situation warrents. This situation didn't warrent it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.--Flash176 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But if you find recent vandalism made from an IP address, please do not hesitate to warn him. we commonly make short blocks, whereupon vandals nearly always lose interest. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we stop using warning templates that suggest anything about blocking when dealing with a shared ip. It's embarrassing when a good-faith contributor reads them and it's bad for our image, saying we'll block and don't. -- penubag  (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Especially when you see "This is your last warning" several times in a row. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

...both of the above are good points - however without a warning we fall foul of the "almost always rule" that an editor (inclusive of IP's) must be warned before a blocking. Personally I'd rather see a situation where wikipedia has a Bot that goes around and removes old messages from IP's that are in the style of a warning and are, say, 7 days old or so. As an admin I will still see the fact of the warning in the history but it removes the unsightliness in the cases that Penubag and Bugs are referring to.--VS ^talk 10:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If the bot allowed for blocks, maybe. But I think 7 days is too short. Maybe a month + block time. But even then...- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

<- I agree with Wolfkeeper, though I think 6 months is better. I've always hated "final warning," especially when I lacked the power to execute the ultimatum. I suppose the "Blatant vandal" is now deprecated, though I prefer it. It lacks the drawback of a possibly unenforceable ultimatum while retaining the deterrent value and alerting others that the editor has run out of opportunities to improve. Dlohcierekim 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to think we often adhere to the "must be warned first" rule a little too rigidly. The point of that rule is to make sure users won't get blocked for something they didn't know wasn't allowed, not to ensure they collect the requisite four warning tokens before a block can be applied. In particular, for the kind of blatant vandalism of the "Miss Jones is a poopyhead" type often seen from schoolkids, there's really no need to warn the user first — they already know they're up to no good. Just slap a 3-hour block on them, leave {{uw-block}} on the talk page and hope they'll find something more interesting to do on recess by the time the block expires. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I hardened my stance on this starting about a week ago, and no one has complained (or requested unblocking) yet. And I've been putting old warnings in a hide box (rather than removing them) for quite a while now (e.g. here); it definitely makes the user talk page more navigable. --barneca (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

...and it seems to be having the desired effect. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What to do about no edit summaries?

Sorry, not sure where to ask this question. I've asked GoldDragon (talk) twice to start providing edit summaries, but he ignores me. Is there anything that can be done?--Flash176 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends, to you actually think this is disruptive or are you just blindly trying to enforce some rule? John Reaves 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If it were minor edits, I wouldn't care, but the user is changing quite a few things around and adding (sometimes unsourced) information. So, yes, I think it's disruptive.--Flash176 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not required, just encouraged. You can't make GoldDragon use edit summaries; the most you can do is remind him/her and hope for the best. If s/he doesn't want to use edit summaries, that's his/her prerogative. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You might find that after editing long enough, edit summaries can seem very tiresome and just plain annoying. If you've got 30,000 edits and an edit summary for every single one... well, that's a lot of extra time.   jj137 (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have half that number of edits, and I find my own edit summaries very useful in remembering why I did what I did... If I need to remind myself, what chance the casual reviewer of my historic edits? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So true. If we didn't have edit summaries, obvious vandalism would be less obvious, and good natured edits would seem more questionable. ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While that is all true, the fact remains that edit summaries aren't mandatory, and if a user doesn't find them to be useful, that's that. Like I said above, we can't force people to use them if they don't want to. Parsecboy (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it can be annoying too. For example, if I fix a typo (like changing the comma to a period), I only changed 1 character yet on the summary I have to type "typo" so the summary is not summary at all, but longer than what I edited! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Long term vandals and freshness of warnings

When I first started RCPatrolling, I hated the idea of not blocking someone like the current crop, that make a few bad edits and then stop-- racking up weeks of warnings without blocking. Is current consensus to block only with full set of recent warnings or to go ahead and blcok? How recent must the warnings be to count? Dlohcierekim 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I consider anything in the past month or so to be recent. -Djsasso (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that less than three weeks is recent.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that demonstrates "bad faith" is recent for me. If a user makes several bad edits, gets warned, disappears for two months, and then comes back and immediately starts doing the same thing, that's good enough for me. Particularly if it's a "named" user account, as opposed to an IP. - Philippe 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 3-4 weeks is recent. That and the pattern of vandalism. For example if a vandal comes back and vandalises the same articles and uses the same type of edits as before then we can be reasonably certain that it is the same vandal. Dr.K. (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition we may want to examine the case of the vandalism spree. IMO if a vandal is prolific and makes over 4-5 vandal edits in a short period of time then they should be blocked with or without a final warning. Dr.K. (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For me, I take each report on a case-by-case basis. Generally, I like to know some things before I block: 1) That the person sitting at the keyboard has had the opportunity to read the warnings given to them and 2) That that same person has continued to vandalise after being given the opportunity to read the warnings and 3) That the block is likely to stop them from continuing their behavior. I base the length of my blocks on a combination of all of these factors. If it is clear, for example, from the editing pattern that the IP is used by a single person to vandalise over a long period of time, I may block for a long time since it is clear that they could have seen the old warnings, and still continues to vandalise, and the block is likely to be effective. If, however, the vandalism is sporadic, if it seems to be random with regard to target articles and style of vandalism, if it only occurs infrequently, or if it is interpersed with good faith edits, I will generally only block for a short time period (24-48 hours usually) and then only if the vandal is clearly sitting at his computer and vandalising RIGHT NOW. If an account shows that it is a shared account, but that it is clearly shared by lots of undersupervised middle schoolers, and has been blocked several times before without improvement, I will give a long (multi-month) school block. However, no two cases are usually identical, and each requires me to give some investigation before deciding how I will proceed. Its never as simple as merely counting the warnings and blindly blocking a certain length of time based on the number or timing of those warnings. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say only the final warning needs to be particularly recent. If there are months worth of warnings on the talk page and it seems to be the same vandal, just jump straight to a final warning. If they continue to vandalise in the next couple of days or so, report them (if it's longer than that, go for another final warning, since it appears final warnings are sufficient to do the job). --Tango (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am generally with Jayron32 that I do not have any blanket personal rules on what warnings are sufficient to block. For an account generally once the user has passed a final warning, and it is clearly in bad faith, I block, even if the final warning was not very recent (such as a week ago). I give more caution to IPs, generally I prefer if a level 3 or 4 warning has been given at least within the last few hours (preferably within the last hour) and the user has clearly ignored it before a block. However, if the edit history suggests it is the same user returning to vandalise with a single IP, then I am happy to block even if the last final warning is not very recent. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a final warning template for "Long term pattern of vandalism" which can be used for someone trying to game the system by waiting out the warning's "freshness." As Tango said, such a final warning should be sufficient warning, although your own discretion could be used as far as a direct report to AIV or an admin. Hope that helps. here's the template: {{subst:uw-longterm}}
-RoBoTam^ice 19:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool template. Dlohcierekim 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The "only warning" and "final warning" templates are often misused, especially on shared IPs, and are frequently subsequently dismissed by admins. If a shared IP has a history of vandalism from some time ago, possibly with a few good edits since, you should be giving the editors more than one warning. Final warnings have no context for a new user. The editors should preferably be recently pointed to the sandbox and warned about blocking. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is another important point, unless a users edits are highly malicious or gaming the system I am a little hesitant to block if the user has only had a level 4 type warnings. In that event I usually re-warn at a lower level or post a general note as appropriate. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I rarely give level 4 the first time around. But if I see that a vandal has hacked at an article more than five times in a short period of time and they keep hacking as I am reverting them then I tend to give a final to slow them down. If they persist after that then I report them. Sometimes this type of vandal will do WP:BLP damage and I find the faster the block the better it is in this case. Sometimes the vandal IP has a prior record other times it doesn't. So it's all relative. But you cannot generalise. Dr.K. (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking policy?

I thought that to block an IP address the user needed to be active. Do two posts per day justify blocking per policy? Would not this be called pre-emptive blocking which is not permitted? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.26.128.154 Note this is only a general question as it seems to be against policy as I understand it. I have no relationship to the blocked IP, so I do not care if it is blocked or not, just a policy question. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. They were actively vandalizing when they were blocked, and they were sufficiently warned. None of the edits from this IP have been constructive so far, so we're preventing two vandal edits tomorrow. The alternative would be to start with a fresh level one warning every day, which would get a little tedious. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that in this case, since the IP is vandalizing the same article repeatedly, it's safe to assume it's the same person. Therefore, I'd say the block is fine. Parsecboy (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, It gives me a different understanding as to what active vandalism is. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The key factor here is most likely that the IP doesn't seem to be shared -- looks like the same person vandalizing over a few days, who is most likely to continue vandalizing unless blocked. Ideally we respond to such issues while the user is active, but the trend here was pretty obvious. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the IP was active at the time they were blocked. He/she made this edit at 01:13 UTC, was warned a minute after that, responded with this charming edit two minutes after being warned, and was blocked two minutes later. This is a textbook example of how it's supposed to be done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent point. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Backlogged

Hi, can an admin please review the vandalism entries - the page is getting backlogged, and those reported are continuing to vandalize. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 07:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Since most admins probably read WP:AN more often than this talk page, I might recommend you drop a note there the next time you notice a backlog. Additionally, while backlogs can build up pretty quickly -especially since the advent of some of today's rapid-fire anti-vandalism tools- an admin or two can churn through even a long list of vandals in short order. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BTTF: What the heck...

Ok, I'm lost here. User:WikiKingOfMishawaka removed the category "Universal Picture Film" from the "Back to the future" article, and some guy put it back because it IS an Universal Picture film. WikiKingOfMishawaka removed it again without any explaination, and that started a revert war. I went on the WikiKingOfMishawaka's talk page to ask him why he's removing the category to discover that the page is now semi-protected and he says "This has been discussed, digested, and spit back out." (I've never seen any discussion about this, but meh!) "I consider this matter closed, in my favor, and expect no further gibberish from you". I don't get it. Could somebody please explain to me on what ground user:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has considered WikiKingOfMishawaka to be right? -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw what you mean. The tone of that editor was very hostile and even border line rude. I did not see any discussion at all and am not sure what it is that has been awarded in his favor.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the article history before getting involved. Being armed with facts is always helpful, in any situation. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Via a WP:AIV report. I'm happy to rescind my support of that state of affairs however; I was under the impression that it was not a Universal Picture Film, and that an IP address was adding the information erroneously. I made a snap decision based on what information I could find, and it was wrong. Please accept my apologies. WikiKingOfMishawaka is looking at a rather long block if he continues in this vein. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we all make mistakes :) I just wanted to know why WikiKingOfMishawaka was doing this and I never got an answer. I was stunned when I saw the semi-protection (which, by the way, the page is still semi-protected). Still, I still don't understand his reason to remove the category and he doesn't seem a person opened for discussion. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New block notice template?

I created User:J.delanoy/IPblock3, intended to be used on the talk page of IP who have already been served with {{uw-block2}}, but do not yet warrant a long enough block for {{anonblock}}. It is analogous to {{uw-block3}}, which says that the user has been indefblocked; consequently uw-block3 is not applicable for IP addresses.

Basically what I am asking is, does anyone else think that this template would be useful if it were moved to the template namespace as {{uw-IPblock3}}? Or is it superfluous? (right now that template page is a redirect to my userspace template, but I am open to discussion of the existence of the redirect if necessary...) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You may have something there. I dislike the text: "unrelenting abuse of editing privileges" and would say instead "repeated abuse...", but otherwise it looks good. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Repeated" sounds better to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Two issues: First, who is the block notice aimed at? If you're using it on stable addresses, the enhanced warning is okay (to a degree); but if it gets slapped on dynamic addresses or shared addresses, it is very finger-wagging (with the bold italics and underlines) and may patronise a bewildered new user. Second, good luck in getting it into the uw- scheme. As I know to my cost, taking two uw- approved templates and making a third produces highly-irate users who want your template out of their pet naming scheme and won't sleep until you move it. Be prepared to find yourself demoted out of that little exercise of lining all the wooden blocks up in one neat row. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think saying "please stop" after saying "you have been blocked" is probably unnecessary. Mr.Z-man 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, after doing some vandal-fighting for a couple of days, I have found that I extremely rarely find a place where using a template like this would be appropriate. In addition, after I made the changes to it that were suggested, the template is practically identical to uw-block2. So I just deleted my template. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

About 'Assyrian People' page

On the Assyrian people page there is a great deal of vandalism going on. This vandalism is committed by the same number of people who have an anti-Assyrian agenda. I am asking anyone here to look over the page and discussions. I have tried to edit many thigns in the page that are incorrect and with each edit I have provided sources and there has been a consensus over the edit, however members such as AramaeanSyriac (who has a clear anti-Assyrian) agenda keeps deleting my changes without discussing the matter or without a reason as to why. Please take a look at the page and the discussion and intervene if you must Thank-you - Malik Danno (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Consistent pattern of abuse

While reading a page [science olympiad] , I noticed a strange edit and checked the history. The same user (IP address only: ) has been making similar vandalism edits on many pages for a while. I would just like to bring this to the attention of admins, for possible blocking. Thank you. Lombar2 (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I checked the Science Olympiad article, and have blocked 199.176.176.2 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. --Elonka 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Glitch in Twinkle

It may appear that I removed a large portion of this page. It was not me that did it. It was a glitch in Twinkle. I used the twinkle arv feature. -- IRP ☎ 22:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just happen ed to me [15]. --Patrick (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed _→AzaToth 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi

I just removed this report:

• Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) delete edit warning message without reason. [16][17][18] Masonfamily (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like Masonfamily might be the problem, and is apparently socking with an IP as well. Putting this here while I look into it. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK... After finding this and looking over Masonfamily's edits, I blocked Masonfamily for 72 hours. There may be more blocks in order here, so I welcome any review. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WTF

What the --Closedmouth (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One of HBC helperbots has logged off, I've blocked the IP. Boo, adding logoff checks is sooo easy. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The HBC AIV helperbot does in fact check to ensure that it is logged in every 10 minutes. If you feel that is insufficient and you'd like to improve it, please feel free to do so - the source is GFDL licensed along with all content on Wikipedia. Oh, and you might want to note that that IP is one of the toolservers, so you may not want to leave a 3 month long block in place on it, especially since that bot instance is almost certainly logged back in by now (and may have even been before you blocked it). —Krellis (Talk) 16:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Perl, but there are at least two ways to guarantee this: checking JS variables in edit page source (as AWB does) / getting prop=userinfo if editing via the API, and mw:Extension:AssertEdit. Both of them allow to detect logoffs immediately and don't require extra network requests, unlike the method currently used. As of Toolserver's IP, it's blocked AO and doesn't affect properly working bots. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And I just unblocked without seeing this discussion. Should I re-block? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. I see nothing bad in blocking this IP anon-only indefinitely, as it allows to prevent bots from logging off. Also, it would prevent the IP from being accidentally hardblocked (hardblocks on it are not supposed to work on Wikimedia sites, but you can' be sure that this feature will never be borked). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to do that, or something else, go ahead. Like I said, I unblocked it without seeing this conversation. I apologize for messing things up :/ I think I'll get back to my digital logic homework now... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Except for causing momentary confusion and probably violating the letter of some policy, what is the harm in the bot not being logged in? In other words, why block? Seems like letting it run while logged out, with a note on the bot maintainer's talk page, would have been sufficient. Unless I'm missing something as usual. --barneca (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions MaxSem, I don't have a lot of time to work on the code currently, but I have added improvements to the logged-in detection to the feature requests list along with a link to the last revision of this page so that I can find it later when I have more time. —Krellis (Talk) 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot does nothing but interfere

I reported a school IP 199.164.68.184 which has made 51 vandalisms (and not one constructive edit) in 1.5 years, but has been blocked only once. I'd like it to be blocked again. Instead the bot just removed my request, saying it was on a list of vandal school IPs. Well, fine. So what good does putting it there, do? You want these things to have 5 warnings, but how are they ever going to collect them, if you short circuit the process for admins to DO it? SBHarris 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It removed the report because the IP address was already blocked for one year an hour or so ago: [19] --barneca (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, how am I supposed to know that, if you don't add a notice to the TALK page that this has been done? Yes, I see that AFTER I wrote the above, you did that. But it hadn't been done at the time I made this note. It saves a lot of time if you note your blocks when you do them.SBHarris

1. I wasn't suggesting that you were "supposed to know that", I was explaining what happened.
2. I didn't do the block, I just added the note to the talk page after I saw your note here.
3. Occasionally, someone forgets a step.
4. If the bot removes a note, now you know to check the block log to see if that's the reason. --barneca (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional to your last point, the bot's edit summary always explains why it's removing an IP. IPs are generally not removed by the bots for any reason other than because they were blocked. Anything relating to categories that the IP or user is in involves noting it in the report, not removing it. —Krellis (Talk) 22:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That IP is one of a substantial range at Pasco County Public Schools that have similarly vandalized. I'd suggest that broader approaches may be in order. Here is their Information Services page.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No anon editing?

Hi there, hopefully this is the right place, if so please can someone redirect me.

I know it's been tossed around, but is there any move toward preventing anon users from editing? If someone really wants to do some editing it's not too hard to create an account. Although plenty of accounts still vandalise, I think that this will cut down on the level of vandalism.

Basically, I'm sick of reverting vandalism, posting messages on talk pages, and if necessary posting here. I'd rather edit. I'm sure there are plenty of others in the same boat too. Freestyle-69 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That will likely never occur. You may want to read through Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users and some of the other pages linked form there to find out why. If you're sick of reverting vandalism, and would rather edit, then by all means, just stop fighting vandalism and do what makes you happy. There will always be plenty of editors who are happy vandal-fighting. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Parsecboy. I've had a bit of a read and it looks like it won't happen soon anyway. As I have limited time on WP, it's basically been anti-vandalism lately, and in a way I was sort of feeling obligated to do it. Cheers, freestyle-69 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the mention of it at m:Foundation issues, I think we're unlikely to see any lockout of that nature. It's been proposed a number of times; you might browse the village pump archives to try looking for previous threads. Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing is also handy (and I think links to the essay mentioned above). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:BD2412

I would like to flag User:BD2412 for intentional bad flagging, as he has flagged one of my articles for deletion, an article I worked very hard on and has legit credentials. His deletion flag was inappropriately done and I would like his actions investigated by someone from ADMIN. He has also taken part in a similar discussion on the WikiQuotes. I believe he has a personal vendetta against the book and this is NO REASON to flag an article. This user only flags for credit and not the greater good of Wikipedia content. Amelia Nymph (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You posted this in the wrong page, repost this on the project page, not the discussion page.--Megaman en m (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, 14yo person. Amelia Nymph (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a vandalism issue (see WP:VAND), and is already under discussion at WP:ANI#User:BD2412. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Report closures

I've been told by some users that AIV reports can only be closed by administrators. Other users said otherwise. See the following discussions: User_talk:IRP#Closing_AIV and User_talk:J.delanoy#AIV_closure. -- IRP ☎ 02:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing at all wrong with a non-admin closing a report that doesn't require blocking, and I'm really pretty confident there's no policy that it's verboten. In general, the fewer things we limit to admins, the better; we should limit admin-only tasks to those which require the extra buttons. It's a wiki, let's take advantage to the fullest. My only caveat is that non-admin input is welcomed if it helps, not if it causes more work. If someone is just starting out closing reports, they may want to leave a comment that they think it should be closed, and let someone else actually close it, until they're comfortable in their own judgement. But I'd recommend a new admin do the same thing. An experienced non-admin removing reports that don't need blocking is a benefit we should, and I think generally do, welcome. --barneca (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree - non-admins clerking here, wether by removing reports or adding commentary on time since last activity / warnings given etc is all useful. Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - the more the merrier. People who repeatedly get it wrong will be spotted quite quickly and can be asked nicely to refrain from helping for a bit. But the vast majority will and do do fine. Anything that admins do that can be done by non-admins should be done by non-admins. We're not gods, we've just got some buttons. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Overall I agree with everything Barneca said. Especially with the advent of {{AIV}}, non-admins can provide a great time-saving benefit by tagging reports. However I admit to being a little apprehensive when it comes to non-admins removing AIV reports ... largely because WP:BLOCK has a lot of wiggle room built into it by design, and different admins block according to their own standards (i.e. a report that some admins would decline out-of-hand because the user was insufficiently warned, other admins would block indefinitely). --Kralizec! (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - all help is appreciated, and I'd have no objection to a non-admin removing a report that is clearly finished (either because the user has been blocked, or the report has gone "stale"). Additionally, demonstration of a good use of this page (both in making reports, and clarifying existing reports) will stand a user in good stead if they try for WP:RFA. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 16:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agree with above. I would go so far as to encourage non-admins to comment on reports (especially with {{AIV}}). It will allow work to focus more on active, continuous vandals. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to be apprehensive regarding non-admins putting in a word or two (or even going so far as removing reports) which do not pertain to the definition of obvious vandalism. It certainly makes it easier for us admins to sort through them to be honest :). Consider this another "non-objection."¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Even if a report is removed when it might not have been appropriate, it shouldn't matter - if the reported account is a bad faith one then they will violate some policy again and will be reported once more to AIV. If no further report is forthcoming, then action was not required to stop the disruption. These things tend to be self correcting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I strongly believe that this article should be deleted from Wikipedia, because no such incident ever took place in the history of Islam, where the Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) asked his Sahabahs to pledge him to avenge anyone’s murder. I have searched his issue on internet also, nothing came up. I suggest that this is an act of vandalism. The writer has also posted a verse from the Quran, which talks about the Pledge of Aqaba. I would say that this is surely a case of spreading misconceptions. Salman (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then you might be interested in nominating it for deletion? This page is for reporting user vandalism, whereas untrue or hoax articles are generally deleted via the AfD. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Anon

216.52.210.40 and 216.52.210.39, (the same guy) is deleting tampering with and deleting passages from the Erich Hartmann. He calls it "POV" which is ridiculously idiotic considering its cited. Someone needs to have a word, it appears he has no idea about how thing work. Dapi89 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears the anon has an account; User:Pat Payne, and has been sockpuppeting. He claims he does this as he is to lazy to log in. Dapi89 (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses - extreme caution required.

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did my report go?

I filed a report on a persistent vandal 10 mins ago, when I got back to the page it was gone without a thrace, what has happend?

Gsmgm (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by a bot [20] because your report had the wrong format. Try again! --Say Headcheese!-hexaChord² 20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot messing up

Looks like the bot is messing up - creating multiple "Alert" areas every time it is supposed to clear an entry. I tried to manually fix it, no luck. I'm outta here right now; I leave it to you folk to fix it. Tan | 39 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Slakr trying to figure it out. Technical mishap, I believe. --Efe (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Bots are still duplicating the "Alert" sections. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Huggle reports are causing it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And the underlying cause was probably a change in the MediaWiki software, which seems to have been fixed. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#.22Undo.22_button_acting_weird -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Article

This has been vandalized, I dont know how to revert--Woogie10w (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for this, but could you clarify? It looks ok to me. --fvw* 02:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am getting a bizzare page with Cyrilic characters--Woogie10w (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC) I seems that this guy got into your system--Woogie10w (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC) I tried again to get in, I am redirected to a bizzare page--Woogie10w (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the greek characters at the top? They're there to explain the etymology of the term, and are part of the article. --fvw* 03:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

NO NO, I am not joking, the article DOES NOT APPEAR AT ALL, ONLY NONSENSE I am serious.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're referring to The Holocaust, right? Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Its OK now, somebody fixed the problem, this vandal was the worst I have seen during my three years on Wikipedia--Woogie10w (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there was some vandalism at Template:GeoGroupTemplate, apparently the template was cached on some servers in the wikipedia cluster and not on others, leading to different people seeing different things. Thanks for your report! --fvw* 03:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Helperbots Fixed

Hi guys. I have fixed the problem with the helperbots - this edit was the cause - I must remind you not to touch that area of the page, including the {{adminbacklog}} template (if present), this is added/removed by the bots. — E ↗ 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Warnings should be clarified

"The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." My report was turned down just now as the vandal had only been give 6 warnings in December 2008 and only 2 were "Final warnings". A poster on my talk page said the vandal must be warned 3 times in one day to be considered a vandal You should put this information on the reporting page, so that people like me don't waste my time and yours making useless reports. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about the same IP, it was finally blocked. Just FYI... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no set number or sequence of warnings that needs to be followed, whoever told you that just made that up. As long as a vandal is active (say, vandalizing in the past 30 minutes or steadily throughout the day), they can be blocked. John Reaves 19:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No edits since final warning???

With respect, the recent decision on 212.219.189.100 appears to be based on incorrect information. The reason given is that "no edits have been made since the final warning", but as far as I can tell a number of edits have been made since the "final warning" on 2008-04-04. -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kyle, it's up to the judgment of the individual administrator, however warnings older than a few days / weeks / months are often considered stale. That said, in this case, there has been vandalism since the last block, so I've re-blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Prior to today's one warning, there was one warning about a week ago, and then another about 7 months back...and a college IP gets blocked for a week because it has vandalized in the past 13 months? Seems a bit off, but oh well. --Onorem♠Dil 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A bug?

I thought I did [this edit] as a 'rollback (VANDAL)', but it is showing in the history as the work of the same user user:Peanislover69 who did the vandalism originally. Marek.69 ^talk 01:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If it was changed back by the vandal at the same time as you were rolling it back and they saved before you did, the software won't register your edit (since it would have essentially been a 'no change' edit to the current saved version). EyeSerene^talk 11:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Commenting Template

Hi, is it possible for us to put that drop-down-commenting template widget on AIV? The one that lists the variations of the AIV template? Lazulilasher (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To whom should I complain about regional language wiki moderators vandalism?

http://te.wikipedia.org moderators blocked by account and IP addresses just because they didn't like atheism related pages created by me. I used alternate IP addresses that were assigned to our own network. Those IP addresses were also blocked. To whom should I complain about regional language wiki moderators vandalism? Kumarsarma (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The short answer: not here. The longer answer: This doesn't sound like vandalism, and it sounds like your were socking. If you have a legitimate complaint, I would try the local wiki's ANI page. Tan | 39 16:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not socking. I am ISP administrator and my network has so many IPs assigned to us. I used alternate IPs only when they blocked my starting IP deliberately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsarma (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Some time IPs generated by DHCP may also lead to suspicion of sock. That doubt can easily get cleared by basic knowledge on internet. So, there is nothing matter to cause doubt of sock. Kumarsarma (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this is a problem for your local wiki. There is nothing that can be done here. Tan | 39 16:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the adinistrators of that wiki are behaving in the same way. So, I didn't understand "to whom should I complain?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsarma (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That wiki is a separate project than the English wiki. There is nothing that can be done here that can't be done there - i.e., we don't have "jurisdiction" over there. If that wiki has an arbitration forum or other escalating method of appeals, then that's what action you should take. Tan | 39 16:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your reply. But I am sad to know that you have no privileges to take action against them. Thank you for reply but also sad for inability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsarma (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Last question: I understood that you can take nothing action against them. My question is "What would be and what should be the consequence in case of voluntary criminal behavior of regional wiki moderators? This is a reminder and none other than it. I won't force you to reply because I am helpless. Kumarsarma (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bringing up legal issues is a bit bizarre at this point, and suggests that you need to cool off a bit. If you think the admins are seriously disrespecting the policies of the Wikimedia Foundation, you could try to escalate to someone there. But take a good look at yourself first. You didn't say why they didn't like your pages (unsourced? too POV? orignal research?), or what you tried to do to resolve the dispute. Maybe you need to learn to work with them; now you've got your whole ISP blocked, which was not a good outcome, to be sure, but don't come here looking for sympathy unless you're willing to make a continued fight of it, which might not be what you need. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not having intention to beg for sympathy. If you can't help, the negligence on criminal behavior of moderators may result bad reputation to wikimedia foundation and not bad reputation to me. Page of Clara Zetkin Clara Zetkinhas been vandalistically deleted though it was not controversial in english wikipedia. Maxime Rodinson was also not so controversial and he was popular for his studies on Jews and Muslims. Maxime Rodinson's page was also vandalised. These are just examples. There are also cases of removing refernces and other necessary information from pages on topics such as honor killings that are discussed in english wikipedia and not allowed to discuss in telugu wikipedia or given limited privileges to talk about them. If you can't help, it's your wish. Kumarsarma (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the sysops in Telugu Wikipedia. I wish to state for record that I have taken note of the above discussions. The reason for blocking Mr. Kumarasarma (or who ever he is among hundreds of IPs) are - he tried to force his point of view, made sweeping generalizations, abused moderators and used very filthy language against those who objected to his edits. Telugu Wikipedia is a small community trying to contribute to the project and can not afford to filter a lot of crap. Hence it is possible that some of his deleted edits could have contained sensible stuff. Mr. Kumara Sarma was welcomed and encouraged to write on his choice topics and all objections were based on policies and communicated in a polite manner. There were no arbitrary actions taken. I can assure all who may be disturbed by the above posts that Telugu Wikipedia continues to adhere to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Kajasudhakarababu (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

<noinclude> categories

Category:Wikipedia noticeboards and Category:Wikipedia blocking

Both present on this page. I'm going to <noinclude> them as they are causing a number of "admin dashboards" to show up in the categories. See the links above for the examples. Given the note at the top of WP:AIV ("Categories. Please do not change or remove without discussion. ") I thought I'd leave a note here first. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done it now - this really isn't controversial. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

this page is not user friendly

On my first attempt to use this page, I had made a typo, and when I went back to fix it a minute later, I ran into an edit conflict with an admin who was deleting my request. Then I discovered that my request had been disregarded because it wasn't formatted right, so I had to type it again. The second time, I accidentally put my request in the middle of a (long) comment field. When I went back to correct this problem, I ran into an edit conflict with a bot that was moving it for me.

Argh. I hate edit conflict. There's got to be a better way. How about a nice web form, or a button on the vandal's Talk page? - Stepheng3 (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you use Twinkle you can actually get a button (says "ARV") at the top of a user's page which will enable you to report them to AIV automatically. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've had a thought (first one of the new year). What if we reformatted AIV so that each report is it's own section. Then, to add a new report, you just click the "+" button, and voila! No edit conflicts. It would require some bot reprogramming, but (since I wouldn't be the one to do the reprogramming) it seems worth it to me. Plus, it would improve legibility of the page, and would make it much easier to comment on reports (and manually delete them if appropriate) than it is now. (For those of us not using Twinkle, anyway). --barneca (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That does sound like a good idea (also to one who will not be doing the reprogramming :) ); edit conflicts are pretty annoying on this page, especially during highly active periods, where you can get three or four ECs in one attempted edit. That would be a surefire way to reduce the number of ECs here. Parsecboy (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I'm not sure how we begin to put it into practice though - the updates to the instructions and the bot code will need to be synchronised somehow. waggers (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• All good ideas - and another way (not so technical) is to prepare your report in your own sandbox - check, got it right(?), cut and paste to here.--VS ^talk 05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another way would be to copy the report to the clipboard first and then click save...----Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 05:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an alternative, some people have suggested leaving reports using a "new section", but with a blank section heading (and therefore without actually producing a new section). Unfortunately this also means you won't leave an edit summary, but it does have the benefit of avoiding edit conflicts without typing in a rush. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Chiming in per request on my talk...) It would certainly take some modification of the helperbots, unfortunately I have even less than my usual "not very much" time to look at Wikipedia stuff right now, so I can't easily give a more detailed answer than that. This has come up a number of times before, and IIRC usually wound up as "use tools like TWINKLE" and/or "use the new section button without creating a new section". I don't know that those are optimal solutions, by any means, but they're certainly the least work for me ;) As always, I'm happy to review patches to the helperbot source and integrate/comment on them as appropriate if someone else wants to take a look. —Krellis (Talk) 19:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Helperbots maybe down

I'm guessing this is just a momentary blip, but leaving a note here just in case it isn't. I don't see any obvious change to the config entries on AIV proper, since the last bot edit about an hour ago (diff). Shouldn't be a problem to go old school for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes noted by me also LS - made an edit summary towards this point in my last clearance.--VS ^talk 11:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Accumulated practice

There has been some discussion about the waste of time on vandals. The policy says they may be warned with templates. This has morphed into must in the box on the project page for this talkpage. Could we think about speedy blocks, no questions asked, for obvious vandals?Mccready (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I, and certainly many others, take it on a case by case basis. For a vandalizing IP that has never caused any trouble, four warnings is appropriate as it allows you to be water-tight certain that you are not about to block a bored 13 year old in a computer lab. For such situations, a short block is in order. However, for a long term school IP, that does absolutely nothing but vandalize, block away. With accounts I tend to be a little more careful, assuming the vandalism isn't just consistent profanity or some such thing, in which case I block quickly. The main thing to keep in mind is that what looks like vandalism to us very often is someone new to the encyclopedia making a couple of test edits to see if they really can add anything. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'll point out that WP:AIV is a page for non-admin's to ask for blocks. It's one thing to block somebody based on your own judgement -- another to ask someone else to do it for you. It sets the bar higher. The admins who you are asking for the block might not see it as as justified as you do. And even under circumstances where they'd be perfectly justified blocking the vandal, they might be equally justified not blocking. (And I've seen some unpleasant arguments arise when someone felt their AIV report wasn't taken seriously enough.) The guidelines on this page help to restrict it to clear-cut cases (not entirely successfully, I'm afraid); that is, where it's clear that (a) the user in question is vandalizing Wikipedia, and (b) other responses (reverting, warning/discussing) are ineffective (it might be clear because they've been tried and they didn't work, or in a few really extreme cases it might just be obvious that they wouldn't do any good). It restricts the calls for administrator intervention to a manageable level, which I think is a good idea. -- Why Not A Duck 00:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot

The bot is removing reports very fast, same second they are reported, is this normal? Are ter reports transfered somewhere or the bot is broken??

17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Warrington (talk)

Generally, bots should remove users once they are blocked. It may be that a user has already been blocked before a report is added. Is this the case here? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, not at all! Long lists of vandalism, recent, unblocked users.

Warrington (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot usually does this when the header is malformed, for example by someone adding a backlog tag. In this case I had fixed it shortly before you mentioned it[21]. The problem was caused here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinated vandalism

See: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2971520&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=25 for their rather sad "Wikipedia Vandalization Contest" T L Miles (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do they really think they can beat Huggle? That's like Chuck Norris vs. a 6-year-old.   jj137 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what they mean by scrambling their IP: "celebrating post 999 by editing 999 articles the first edit is to [22], and in that edit is a clue to the next one, which i made after scrambling my ip. each one continues on like this 999 times so have fun wikikfaggots". I do a fair amount of anon IP vandalism reversion, I don't see evidence this is happening. I think I'd notice a trend. Could someone comment? Piano non troppo (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal policy change

A proposed change to vandal blocking policy is being discussed here per discussion above it on that page. delldot ∇. 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some sort of rule about when you can, and can't, remove comments on a report?

I experienced some sneaky behavior on the part of Alansohn (talk · contribs) a little while ago that ought to be discussed.

• At 9:54 a.m. US EST, Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) reported an IP, 203.177.74.14 (talk · contribs).

• About 13 minutes later, in the midst of going through a huge backlog of reports, I looked at the IP's edits. It seemed they had stopped making obvious vandalism, and I made a comment to that effect.

• On the very next edit, Alan removes my comment without even modifying the Huggle-generated edit summary to explain this.

• I restored it three minutes later with an edit summary asking him to discuss this at least.

He let it stay up, but I would still like an explanation. The effectiveness of AIV is compromised by actions such as this. We leave comments and review reports for a reason ... to keep this page from degenerating into "requests for blocks" and from being used as a way of settling content disputes. When comments are removed without explanation, the process loses a little of that fairness it needs. Can we put this in the banner? Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would assume this is a huggle issue, not sneaky behavior by Alansohn. Did you consider asking him about it directly? Have you noticed a pattern of comment removal that would justify adding more to the banner, or is this a fairly isolated incident? --Onorem♠Dil 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In the pre-Huggle olden days, I would manually warn editors, typing laborious warnings on their user pages, and then posting manually to WP:AIV when they had gone too far. All of the edits I made during the period in question this morning were made using Huggle. While I can understand why it appears that I removed someone's note in sneaky fashion and then let it stay later, it appears that Daniel Case is anthropomorphizing some bizarre quirk of Huggle. I have not manually edited WP:AIV since I started using Huggle three months ago and I haven't done so today. While the time stamps show a minute apart, it appears that there may have been a Huggle-related edit conflict that overlaid the previous edit. I have no idea who the editors in question are and I would much rather see a problem editor reform than have them banned. I can assure you that I have no idea how the text was removed or why on earth I could possibly get Huggle to delete someone else's edit even if for some ungodly reason I had wanted to do so. I think this ought to be sent on to the Huggle folks who may have some meaningful input on this. I can assure you that I wouldn't even know how to do what it appears I did. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't get called here but just noticed this topic :P. From what i can see yes this is a quirk of huggle. In this case huggle was just slightly too slow. It got the content of the page, added the new report onto the end and submitted it. In the time that huggle had got the report and added the new report the comment had been added to AIV. This was then removed when the old version of the page with the new report was posted. In other words an edit conflict due to maybe a second when huggle was computing. Hope you understand this. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with hundreds of Alansohn's reports, and perhaps declined a handful. Never had any issues. Of course, I have had issues with other editors, usually because they believe that submitting a report is a de facto block request. And they get pissed when it's denied. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, and I think this thread was a result of a simple edit conflict. Tan | 39 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I accept that this is a quirk of Huggle (which I don't use and am unfamiliar with). Can it be fixed? Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith. — Werdna • talk 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No as it is simply a matter of miliseconds in it there isnt really a way to stop it from happeneing. But it shouldnt happen that much anyway. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

Hi, all. I reported an IP vandal from an educational institution, and the notice was taken down without any apparent action. I'm hoping someone can let me know what happened or how these cases are handled. Thanks. –Bdb484 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shared IP (ie. used by more than one person - a school computer in this case), and by the time you made the report it had been some sixteen hours since the IP had edited, and was therefore considered "stale". In all probability the next person to use that IP would not be the same person who had committed the vandalism, therefore blocking would not have been an appropriate move.

Generally speaking, for IP addressed to be blocked then they need to be active now, or at least within ten - thirty minutes of the report being made - anything more and they'll generally be considered stale. Hope that helps. _Gb^T/c 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure does. Thanks. –Bdb484 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SSP/SPI

SSP and RFCU have been merged into WP:SPI. I wouldn't know the first thing about changing this template to reflect that, but this, Template:AIV/doc and MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Administrator intervention against vandalism all need to be changed. Cross posting this to Template talk:AIV. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you wanted? Icewedge (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations.

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations.

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations.

Seems to work well. figured it would be more complicated than that. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for pointing that out. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User page block notices

Resolved

 – see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_notices_on_IP_user_pages

I am confused by the process. Please see the following diff Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot accidentally removed a complaint that had been moved from WP:ANI

Please see this diff. Thanks (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Because when it was added it was simply copied over wholesale, heading and all, from ANI rather than being formatted into the {{vandal}} template. In any event, the IP hasn't edited in a while, so it's stale. _Gb^T/c 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So HOW do I report vandalism, exactly?

Okay, so I go to this page, and I see that it is the page to report vandalism...but unless I've missed something obvious, I can't see where I'm supposed to actually REPORT it. Help, please? Cybersteel8 (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Scroll down on the page a bit and you'll see "Alerts", followed by two subsections, "Bot-reported" and "User-reported". Put yours under "User-reported". You can also read the guide to this page for more info. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is dysfunctional

I agree with Cybersteel8. I'm trying to report the persistant vandalism by 96.231.69.49 at Patrick Syring and other pages. This started about a week or so ago and in that time I've reported this at ANI twice. Admins there warned the user but did nothing else. The vandalism is continuing, of course, since there never was any doubt that this user is not interested in 'warnings', rules or making an encyclopedia. I did look at the "User-reported" section and it makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is for immediate, obvious vandalism. If the vandalism is slow motion, not obvious, requires investigation or needs extra work, then it's a clue that another board is where you want to start. Also, a vandal needs to be warned more than just twice, or for these semi-content issues, an attempt made to communicate with no or a poor response back. If that's not possible, again it's a clue that you've got the wrong board. ➲ redvers ^{see my arsenal} 14:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that the IP is pov-pushing, not committing vandalism. AN/I is the place to go for disruptive editing of that type. Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. When in doubt, try WP:AN/I instead. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to temporarily protect an entire page from being edited?

Over the last few weeks, I have had issues with anonymous users who have been vandalizing the page List of programs broadcast by Boomerang. Multiple users, who remain anonymous, have been updating the page making claims about programs that are to be coming to Boomerang (TV channel) in the year 2009. The only problem I have with this is that they do not cite any kind of source to back up their claims. Also, the programs they keep adding are programs that are owned by companies like Disney and DIC Entertainment, which logically would not license their shows to be shown on Boomerang, since the channel is owned by a competitor, Time-Warner. I have warned multiple users who have been making edits to the page that I will report them, but after each warning, the same edits are being done by someone with a different IP address. Is there a way to at least temporarily protect the page from being edited by these vandals? S275ironman (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can request semi protection (stops editing by ip and very new account editors) or protection (stops editing by all editors, although admins can edit a page after talkpage consensus and do noncontroversial clean ups) at WP:RFPP. Short protection periods are more likely to be granted (and semi protection more than full) but you will need to provide examples (WP:DIFF) of the problematic behaviour over a period. Also, if different but similar ip addresses are making the same edits you may wish to open a sockpuppet enquiry at WP:SPI - but page protection is best if it is only that article they are editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)