Wikipedia talk:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Full set of warnings[edit]

I disagree strongly with this statement: "Vandals should always receive a full set of warnings before being reported, unless there is severe vandalism, or a history of vandalism. If you come across an anon's talk page with previous reports within the last few days, it is considered acceptable by most to begin with a level 2 or 3 warning but if there is no history of vandalism they should be warned with a level 1 template (except in extreme cases)." Especially the emphasis placed on "always". All the level 1 templates assume good faith. The vast majority of what I revert as vandalism could not possibly be called good faith by anyone possessing the slightest modicum of intelligence, and I rarely use {{uw-vandalism1}}. I refuse to patronize people by pretending that they may have replaced a page with "poop" by accident, and if they did by some freak accident {{uw-vandalism2}} isn't particularly harsh sounding in my opinion. {{uw-delete1}} is another story, because it's a lot more difficult to tell whether someone accidentally deleted content or not than it is to tell whether or not they wrote "George Bush is a dickwad" in good faith. Other editors feel differently about placing a first level vandalism template, but then there has always been a level of independence given to recent change watchers as to which template to start with. I feel taking that away in favor of mindlessly applying the templates in consecutive order is counterproductive. Perhaps the wording could be changed to something like "Vandals should only be reported after they have been sufficiently warned, but what constitutes sufficient warning is left to the judgment of the reporter and the blocking admin. Keep in mind that regardless of what order you apply the templates in a user should always receive a final warning (a level 4 or 4im template) and have vandalized after receiving it before being reported, and only in the most extreme or obvious of circumstances will a user be blocked if they have not received a warning within the past 24 hours." possibly giving examples of actual vandalism and the warning applied. Because that is how things have always worked, and what is on WP:VAN, which states "They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession."Emphasis mine. Unless you wish to make this proposal a policy itself, I would recommend you refrain from including things which are not supported by existing policy.--Dycedarg ж 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Other disruptive behavior"[edit]

The text reads "Other disruptive behaviour such as spamming, and blatant violations of the username policy may also be reported but be sure that there isn't somewhere more appropriate to report." This isn't really helpful to the reader, because they are left to find these other places. Plus, isn't persistent spamming basically treated like vandalism? How about we change it to something like:

Administrator intervention against vandalism is a place to report current vandals who are engaging in persistent vandalism, including spamming. Blatant violations of the username policy may also be reported, but non-obvious cases should be dealt with by following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing_with_problem_usernames.

-SpuriousQ (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Section move?[edit]

Should "When reporting at AIV is not appropriate" (which I renamed to be more in line with other policies) be moved to directly after "When to report" so you have a full set of circumstances and criteria before going on to how to report? Bubba hotep 08:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me -- I like the inverted pyramid model for this sort of page. "How to report" is easy to find, and seems to follow in the order you mentioned. I changed the section heading, too, earlier. :p The current one sounds okay to me (especially with your reasoning), although I might like it if we adjusted the "When to report" heading to match it a little more closely. Consistency between them is more important than the particular name, at least to me; anybody else have an opinion on that second bit? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha! I didn't realise you had already changed it! I'm not overly sure about my version to be honest, but... we'll see what others think. :) Bubba hotep 08:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some tweakage[edit]

Great page! I polished up the grammar a bit, and added a section "What to report" that parallels "when to report" and "how to report." Raymond Arritt 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


To block or not to block? Shared IP with many, many vandalisms[edit]

I need The Word on official policy here. How do we handle repeat vandalisms from a shared IP (e.g. a school)? I wanted to report and have blocked 66.35.162.19 (over a hundred vandalisms dating 8 January 2004 - 30 March 2007, not a single valid edit as far as I can see, multiple warnings and blocks on user's Talk page), however, "This IP address, 66.35.162.19, is registered to Carroltton City Schools and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution." Is the official policy in these situations to just grin and bear it, or would it be logical to just permanently block 66.35.162.19 as a major hassle? Reply on my Talk page if you wish, but it's probably better to discuss here in case other Wikipedians have similar questions. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I not paying attention - how do you report vandalism?[edit]

I found some vandalism that I cleaned up on the Tottenham Hotspur FC article. So I looked at who had done it and it lead to me the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.145.242.82 It says on there that person is on their last warngin since March 1st '07. The Article I found was edited on August 16th.

I tried to find out how to report it, but it seems so very over complicated. It said something about the User-reported section on the page, but I couldn't find anything relating to "user-reported". I will continue looking for how to report vandalism, but could it be made easier maybe for those of us who haven't done it before or have no idea what people are trying to say in their explainations?

Thanks to anyone who can make reporting this easier

Philip_Kemp

Completely agree. This article is confusing and doesn't give a simple link or procedure on how to report vandalism. "All reports should be placed at the very bottom of the "User-reported" section of the page" ("THE PAGE" is very confusing, WHAT page?!, provide a link!) User5802 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I clarified the wording, hopefully. — TKD::Talk 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too[edit]

Me too. I hereby report that I see the letters "e.t.c." instead of "etc." and the whole sentence may be vandalism, on Turkic migration. What to do about it I toss in your laps, as it is not just a one click undo I bet. Jidanni 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

+ link gone???[edit]

Sorry if I may have missed the reason for changes to the project page but what's happened to the "+" link at the top of the page that allowed me to post admin intevention against vandalism? Now I have to click on "edit" in the user reported section and I often get into edit conflict as a result. Is it possible to revert back to the previous style please? BTW, I also posted this question at the talkpage of admin intervention against vandalism so pardon the doubleposting. --Meekywiki 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, it's been fixed. Thanks. --Meekywiki 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When to report[edit]

Currently reads "Administrators are unlikely to remove your report if they feel that the vandal has been insufficiently warned or has stopped after the final warning." Surely that should read "...are likely..." LeadSongDog (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was thought to be a typo (see diff). I have reverted so that it says "likely" again. James086Talk | Email 08:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the thinking here?[edit]

I don't get the reasoning behind this warnings requirement. If some account has made edits which can plainly have no other motivation besides vandalism, then surely we want to block it as soon as possible, before it can do any more damage? If the user wants to contest the block, they can, but let them stay blocked in the meantime.--Kotniski (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is more effective and productive to ask nicely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well... I think a block is pretty effective, especially if we're talking about an account that's being used to target semi-protected pages (so can't easily be switched). And productive - I suppose it depends how much of an administrator's time it takes to check the report and set a block, compared with the time it takes to put a series of warnings on the vandal's talk page - factoring in the value ratio between an administrator's time and an ordinary mortal's time, of course, but also the probability that a block will be necessary anyway. A complex calculation, but I remain unconvinced.--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are not as effective as you may think. With the ability to use different IPs, or wait for the block to expire, or create virtually unlimited undetectable sockpuppets, it is more effective to win hearts and minds by persuading people that they do not really want to vandalise. It is more productive to the encyclopaedia by encouraging vandals (and new editors) to contribute constructively instead of negatively or not at all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

blocking someone from your page[edit]

i need to block lambs12 but,i don't know how!please help!--Limited2fan (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts[edit]

Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account says "Vandalism-only accounts are usually blocked indefinitely, sometimes without warning."

On this thread on a AIV, two admins have ignored this and failed to block an evidently vandalism-only account, claiming that it hadn't been warned enough and citing this guide.

So what's happening here? Are we saying that a how-to guide trumps and information page? Is it just that admins have to use their discretion, and point to whichever page fits what they have done? I'm not against admin discretion, but some kind of additional explanation might be useful.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It seem to me there is not enough warning, and therefore not enough evidence that it is a VOA. They received little indication they would be blocked if they continued, certainly no repetition of the warning, and they appear to have attempted to reverse their edits and take a voluntary blpreak. I am not saying a clearer warning about blocking would have worked on the admins - it is more a matter of there being only two. Some receive none. HTH. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The account has made four edits. All clearly vandalism. I am thinking abou your first sentence. How would further warnings provide any further evidence that this was a vandalism-only account? Yaris678 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
One should look at how many times they ignore messages. You can treat a whole string of edits as only a single edit, if there's no message telling them to stop. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
So what is the thought process? Is it "The user has only ignored two messages, so the user might not realise that their edits aren't appreciated"?
If that is the consensus view of the community, then maybe the Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account page needs updating.
Yaris678 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)