Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:




==[[Easter Bunny]]
==[[Easter Bunny]]==
I was looking for information the Easter Bunny and this is the site i found, judgeing by the histroy this is not the proper version
I was looking for information the Easter Bunny and this is the site i found, judgeing by the histroy this is not the proper version


Revision as of 17:43, 26 October 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4


Easter Bunny

I was looking for information the Easter Bunny and this is the site i found, judgeing by the histroy this is not the proper version

Paul Dacre

Perhaps I'm getting too involved in this and having done my 3 reverts in 24 hours, I'll use the time to cool off, but surely calling someone a racist, paedophile and sexist is vandalism. I'm willing to take NawlinWiki's point about how it can be viewed as a content dispute and I suppose there's a fine line between the two categories. Paulhinds 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoGoGobots

Okay, these pages go in circles. One page says that stuff like this goes in another page, and that page links to another, and then that page links back at the first one, so I'm going to report this person here. He only edits the Gobots article. He has changed it 12 times. He always does the same thing. He changes it from Gobots to K-Mart Bots or something. Obvious vandal. Please ban.Triikan 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Have we gone soft?

User talk:72.65.235.239 - I've recommended this user three times for a block. The latter two times reasons were given, "hasn't vandalized in two days" and most recently "hasn't vandalized in 30 minutes". How is not vandalizing in 30 minutes a valid reason not to block a user? All the user seems to be doing is taking a short break after being warned and then going right back to vandalism again. This account has virtually no useful contributions other that blatant anti-drug and alcohol vandalism. Is our stance now to keep slapping users with warnings and letting them continue to create more work for others, rather than blocking them outright? --Liface 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Yesterday, I managed to report this guy, and he had not edited for six hours prior to my report (this may not be relevent, but he was a sock of another user). I would suggest asking the admin who gave you that response why he said that. —Whomp t/c 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just relist it again if the account shows more vandalism and hope another admin handles the case. --Liface 03:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reasoning behind the IP I reported. If a person vandalizes repeatedly, and its clear from their edit history, we look the other way so long as they haven't done it in a while? If only the police worked that way. --Bobak 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not the police. You're under arrest for the comparison... --Lord Deskana (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... as a quick sidenote, Musical Linguist was kind enough to explain some of the inner workings of the administrator action cabal ;-) --Bobak 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BLOCK "Admins are never obliged to place a block", "Blocks are preventive rather than punitive measures used to prevent damage to Wikipedia..." If an IP (which maybe dynamically assigned) isn't currently (recently) vandalising then a block is not preventing any damage, if it is dynamic or shared and someone else is impacted it is arguably doing damage. --pgk(talk) 19:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ongoing problem. Many of the admins in the anti-vandal cabal are slow, to be polite, in blocking a user. That's one reason I rarely report anyone anymore. It often seems futile. Rlevse 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must not run into me very much. ;) Syrthiss 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should issue a new standard for blocking...? --KojiDude (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new in this topic, but I personally would recommend two standard approaches:

  • Nothing is wrong with being slow, but it is awful being sloppy or not consequent in blocking.
  • I recomended today a user IP for being blocked, which had a last warning message from January. I am in principle fine with the policy that users are not blocked after they have not edited for a while, but this should be pretty clear to them, too. So, I would like to see an additional short not-blocked-because-time-bonus-note on those user pages.

My two cent, JKW 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your second point, how do you know it was the same person? An IP can be reallocated and reallocated. --pgk(talk) 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is PRECISELY why ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED on wiki. And as for the time delay, I've seen admins fail to block when they revandalize after a blatant or test4 was issued a mere 5 minutes previously. No wonder there are so many vandals on wiki.Rlevse 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well requiring accounts has been discussed numerous times and downside deemed to outweigh the upside. Many anons aren't vandals, someone reading might see a typo (say) and fix it, have to go through account creation etc. and they quite likely won't bother. Remember the project is about building an encyclopaedia not eliminating vandalism. (The latter of course helps the former but it shouldn't be at the cost of the former.) However that is not something we can decide here, bring it up on WP:VP if you want to drag that up again. I was responding to an instance concerning several months between last warning and vandalism. Did you ask the admin to clarify why they didn't feel a block was necessary when someone got warned with test4 and then carried on vandalising within 5 minutes of getting that warning? --pgk(talk) 09:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that at least shared IPs should be prevented from editing without accounts.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that we still don't have a "users from this IP address must be registered" capability in the software. There are many occasions when the collateral damage from an IP block is such that it's not feasible. This is an ongoing problem with AOL, and an intermittent problem with educational institutions. If we had a "block anons only" option, blocking would be easier on everyone. It's been discussed, but not implemented. --John Nagle 07:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you may wish to comment on a proposal I have drawn up, which will allow bureaucrats to flag shared IPs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with posts

For some reason, recent vandal reports that have been made have not been able to use the Wikipedia code and have simply shown up as the characters that are typed when posting.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot a </nowiki>. I put it in for you. MER-C 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a template for use with this page

I created the following template for use with Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. It's {{subst:Non-admin fwarn}} and is seen below:

Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please reconsider your behavior once the block expires.


Please consider it's use on offending user talk pages to notify them of being reported on this page. If it's acceptable, let me know what I can do to add it to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Thanks, BrianZ(talk) 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does it add to the existing ones? It's a little wordy and contains at least one spelling error as well. --Guinnog 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It adds a link to WP:AIV so that offenders know that there is a record and report of their activity. Less-persistant vandals (such as ten year olds adding the phrase "Joe Smith smells like 3 day old diapers" to the NATO article, may stop at the suggestion that admins are watching them and aware of their activity. Also, Many other templates are in the form of "Stop... or I'll say stop again." By using this template, non-admins can state that the offending user has been warned several times and now reported as a final resort. As far as spelling error... Where? I can be wordy myself so I understand what you're saying. :) Thanks for your input BrianZ(talk) 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes based on Guinnog's suggestions. BrianZ(talk) 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I've never been a big fan of linking vandals to AIV. Most probably don't know it exists, and telling them, "You've been reported here!" might be a form of WP:BEANS. I think getting in the practice of linking vandals here would increase the number of times vandals try to remove their own entry or blank the entire page or who knows what. Anybody else agree, or am I just being too cautious? (P.S.- On these same lines, though, I wouldn't be opposed to saying, You have been reported to an administrator, who will review your edits shortly. without the link.) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes like you requested, as after hearing your POV I agree with you 100% EWS23. Please see changed template above. The warning itself still let's the offender know that they have been reported to administration and blocking is most likely inevitable yet it's not in a threatening tone. BrianZ(talk) 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template seems sorta usless to me...This thing seems like an inbetween for test4 and test5, which is pretty pointless to me. KojiDude (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never thought that test4 and test5 were something a regular editor without admin permissions should use. They basically say, "Stop, or you might get blocked if an admin notices your vandalism." (Unless I'm wrong and they are added to a category that admins regularly check). This template tells the vandal that administration has been notified of their behavior directly. If I'm wrong and test4 and test5 do add a user to a list patrolled by admins than I agree, this template wouldn't be needed. I personally never tell someone they'll be blocked the next time that they vandalize if I can't be sure they will. BrianZ(talk) 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of telling people they've been reported here. It effectively says "I want to block you, but have no power myself" which just encourages vandals as they know they're getting away with it. -- Steel 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying but, if used correctly and the user is added to the WP:AIV page at the same time, they won't be getting away with anything. I also disagree that non-admins don't have power. I think that we all have power to make WP better, we just don't have permissions to block users. We have the power to notify administration to curtail vandalism and other poor behavior. BrianZ(talk) 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for use

Please discuss improvements to the possible template in the space above. If we can't come to a concensus, then I'd just assume the template be deleted. Please vote here:

  • Yes - Granted it's my template, but I've had about 3 instances in which I wished I had something like this in the last 2 weeks. It's why I created it. BrianZ(talk) 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - or something like it. Rklawton 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Steel's comment. --Chris (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Yes - As said... if you WANT to use it, you can use it... but if you dont want to use it. don't. --Deenoe 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral After a short reflexion.. I figured that giving them the link they would probably vandalize the list too... --Deenoe 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why are we voting on this? If you want to use it, use it. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. -- Steel 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to arbitrarily add a template I created to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I was under the impression that it should be voted on and approved by a group. I was trying to do the right thing. If it's unneccessary I'll add it to the page. BrianZ(talk) 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A vote isn't really appropriate. If you want consensus, you have to convince others that the template is good, or be convinced that it isn't, not take down numbers. Do you think that the current templates, specifically the ones with the stop hand that say it is your "last warning" and you will be blocked for vandalism, are ineffective? I don't think that a vandal should at all be notified of this page, or given any sort of peek at how Wikipedia works to stop vandalism. If this vandalism will encourage vandals to come to this page and remove vandalism warnings, of it will be a sort of WP:BEANS, that leads them to realize they could mess up Wikipedia even more than just adding obscene words, that escalates the problem from what might just a be a kid who will stop given {{test4}} and someone who realizes they could have even more "fun" by messing up administrative noticeboards, etc. All the vandal needs to know is that he will be blocked if he continues. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you know this, don't you? ;-); btw, I don't see a need at all for this template, and have to echo Centrx in this regard. Lectonar 09:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Centrx, It's the reason I changed the template. It no longer points users to WP:AIV because it has already been said that leading vandals here is inapproriate. I feel that the template is neccessary for non-admins, because we can't be sure that they'll be blocked when we place a warning on their talk page. I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend and thought about this alot and now have a fresh look at this discussion, I'm even more convinced the template should be used and since improvements have been made based on everyone's concerns, I would consider this voting/consensus a success. I do feel I did the right thing, and I will continue to ask for peer advice before adding templates to Wiki community pages. Solution: I'll add the template to my userspace and use it myself and if others would like to use it, they can find out where it is. I will not add it to the Template Messages page though. Maybe someone, who is more qualified then myself, will in the future. Thanks for all your valued input, each one of you should receive a wikithanks and I would if I had more time. :) BrianZ(talk) 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purge link added.

I noticed that after the main page had been emptied, one entry was still left no matter what I did. Therefore, I added a server-side cache purger. I did not add it to the header because it would purge the header's cache, not this page's cache. Jesse Viviano 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning process

This is at least partly beyond the scope of this page; so may maybe this is not the right forum. If that’s the case, where should I go? I can’t figure out the warning process. Specific issues:

  • If I discover that someone has vandalized three pages at once, is it legitimate to issue {{test}}, {{test2}}, and {{test3}} at the same time? Or does there have to be separate vandalism after each warning to justify the next?
  • The instruction says, “Do not list here if … The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., within the previous week).” Does that statement imply that if someone vandalizes regularly twice a week, he should never be reported?
  • I can’t find anywhere that it explains the standard for issuing {{blatantvandal}}? Do this and this qualify? --teb728 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, one doesn't issue multiple test templates at the same time. They're issued seperately because it gives the user time to read it. If they don't correct their behaviour, you issue the next one. etc. As for the blatentvandal template, the talk page is the closest thing to a standard, and says: "This is intended for use where vandalism is extreme or obscene and not for newby tests and general silliness.". For incredibly extreme cases, {{test4im}} can also be issued. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |
If your repeat user is stopping just short of a test4, then coming back a week later to continue, I'd issue a bv or, if it's repeatedly repeated, test4im. If all of their edits seem to be vandalism and they're repeatedly leaving at test4s, I would at least try to report it here. IP addresses are a different issue, though, because multiple people may share the same one. It really depends on the specifics of the situation. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More sysops watching this page?

Is it possible we can have more sysops with experience dealing with vandals watching this page? Twice in the past 12 hours I've had to point out an AIV backlog to a sysop on IRC (#wikipedia), but we simply can't afford to have more than a couple of people listed here for more than, say, 10 minutes. It puts more strain on the few RC patrollers we have left (I used to do up to 150 reverts per day but had to stop due to other janitorial tasks needing attention) and doesn't take that long to empty. --Draicone (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be backlogged more often; not sure if that because there are less admins watching it, or more vandals. Probably the latter. You'll probably want to post this elsewhere (if you haven't already), since most of the people liable to read it are probably already watching this page. -- Natalya 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check timestamp of last warning to that of last vandalism

Several times I've seen users get banned while I'm looking into the cases listed on this page, even though they have done nothing since the last/only warning. Just a reminder. (This is a lot easier to do if you set your time zone to +0, so the signature timestamps match those in the contributions log) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to my blocking of User:Luci-chan, I'm pretty sure the blatant vandal warning came between the two acts of vandalism. (It was hard to tell, though, since it all happened in a 2 minute time span, and Wikipedia doesn't give seconds, only minutes) —Mets501 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't referring to any in particular, just been seeing it a bunch over a couple days. If you're trying, don't worry about it :) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-) —Mets501 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of last few hours?

On point number 3 under the sub-section of Editors, it is stated; The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning. Can I know what is the definition of last few hours. Could it be three or even up to 20 hours? The statement is a bit vague here. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be the last "couple" hours, basically like 0-3 hours, I think. —Mets501 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends if it's a shared IP address or not, too; you might have ten different users using a shared IP in an hour, but one user with their own IP/account might vandalize articles throughout the entire day. If you're in doubt about the time being a bit too long, you can always leave a final warning, but use your discretion. -- Natalya 15:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media:Example.ogg appears magically; 670+ ghits

I was editing my page and [[Media:Example.ogg]] appeared magically. I recently downloaded CorHomo. The discussion page (found by popup) for [[Media:Example.ogg]] has this message: 

This is a page used by kiddie vandals to insert nonsense into Wikipedia.
 Bart133 (t) 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks--Ling.Nut 13:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what to do / newbie report

Hi, browsing Wikipedia, I discovered something strange on that page : Spear of destiny (I "reverted" it, look in the history), I think it's form of vandalism but I only read wikipedia, I don't know the terms, there seem to be very much rules and terms, so I try to report it, hope it will help. thanks -- 83.214.221.37 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was vandalism, thank you for reverting it . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this appears to be simple vandalism. Basically what you did was all that needed to me done: revert and move on. If the user continues to vandalize, simply report them at WP:AIV. --Chris (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help understanding warning of vandals

User:209.43.33.201 was warned and blocked on 5 May 2006. He received another last warning on 15 May 2006 but was not blocked. Now, on 14 September, he has vandalized again. I have left a test4 warning. Is this appropriate. It has been 4 months since the last vandalism and since this might easily be a school account, it might not be the same person. Are we supposed to go back to a first-level warning using "test" or should we pick up where we left off with test4?

--Richard 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible that the ip address has been reassigned considering it hasnt been used in months. So assuming good faith, I begin from test 1 -- Lost(talk) 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a reverse DNS (that's OK, right?) on the IP and it is indeed a school account, one run by Hamilton Southeastern Schools near Indianapolis. I am inclinded to believe that Richard's analisys is likely correct, and that the gap in vandalism is due to the summer holidays. I'm having a similar problem with the item below. Maury 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long term block appropriate when?

I was wondering if anyone could help me with the problems being caused by User talk:216.185.69.97. This is an annon account, but given the edit histories it actually appears to be a single student within the school. Almost every edit in recent times has consisted of two or three edits to the same article, generally to insert sophmoric scatalogical comments. Several admins have applied blocks, including myself, but a new graphitti run starts as soon as it wears off.

Is this an example of an account that could safely be blocked long-term (ie, until school ends in June) for annon users only? If a user logs into the account, will they be directed somewhere where they will clearly see what has happened, and what to do about it? I'd hate to end up blocking an innocent user who can't even figure out what's going on.

Maury 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This is a tough one. Historically, we really don't like applying blocks of more than hours to IP addresses for fear of collateral damage (the first experience of a new Wikipedia users should not be to click edit and get a "you can't edit" message, after all). So I'd be fearful of imposing a block of any appreciable length on an IP.
However, that isn't to say I haven't done so in the past. If the IP in question is clearly only one editor (and I don't mean "mostly" or "mainly", I mean "only") then a block of length is not inappropriate, especially if accompanied by a request to contact Wikimedia or the blocking admin directly for confirmation. If the IP is regularly, but not exclusively, used for wide-ranging vandalism, then an anon-only block of median length can be justified, but is likely to be overturned should any legit user complain. If the IP is producing legal or death threats, or targeting a single user with hate speech or personal attacks, then I would block but watchlist the talk page in case of an appeal - and request that the IT administrator at the IP contact me or the Foundation.
I suppose it comes down to individual judgment in the end. Suffice to say it's a subject were we do block anon shared IP addresses for long terms, but really wish we didn't. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is...

...removing large parts of an article - but part of a content dispute (whereas the warring parties don't communicate) considered vandalism - as per Blanking? --HolyRomanEmperor 09:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be if it's done in bad faith. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, please view Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje (and their talk pages and histories). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong..

...but WP:AIV is NOT the place to report about bad usernames, is it? --Deenoe 11:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but it does grab admin's attention if they happen to miss it on the Recent Changes. Doesn't seem to be a big deal to me.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is obviously offensive, this is the correct forum. See Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames, "Changing inappropriate usernames". Accurizer 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone reported a username that was Mediacorpinc or something like that. --Deenoe 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{blatantvandal}}

I've seen a lot of people leaving a single {{bv}} on a talk page and treating it as the final warning. I can see that this would be a correct response in some situations, but giving only one warning for all instances seems a bit harsh. Personally, I'll start with {{test1}} for most cases, or {{test2}} for obvious vandalism, and continue to rewarn as necessary. In my opinion, a single {{bv}} seems insufficient. Isopropyl 02:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To report, it is needed a test4 or a bv tag. I believe I have used the blatant tag only two or three times, most times preferring to use the test ones. However, the tag exists, and we don't all have the same definition of "test". -- ReyBrujo 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{bv}} certainly has its uses, I've used it in place of a block that would have been warranted as disruption withough warning, then watched the contribs. About half those times the next edit ends up being vandalism/personal attack/etc, resulting in a block anyway. It is certainly not for use in all situations though. — xaosflux Talk 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of all our misused tags, BV is probably the most misused, albeit for the noblest of reasons: it seems most often used by new users just discovering vandalhunting and thus fired up about the subject, or by new and established users when an article on their watchlist has been hit (especially if they created or greatly expanded that article). I've always been reluctant to use it as the vast, vast majority of vandalism is actually people testing, even if they test by adding "OMG! IVE HACKKD WICKEDPEDIO! JIM IS GAY!".
Honestly, we should be more easy going about testing - the wiki idea is a startling and strange one to most new users and the very idea of opening a page, changing it and saving it just sounds mentalist to most of them. BV really only applies to vandals who are plainly editing with knowledge of Wikipedia already (eg sockmeat) or have no hope of redemption - and the latter category should be judged very conservatively because the consequences of being wrong are profound.
Nevertheless, when correctly used, BV is very effective - either the vandal stops or is blocked. Easy. But, right or wrong, we don't have a zero-tolerance policy to simple vandalism because it would hoover up too many non-vandals who will be the next generation of editors. In that, xaosflux is right to be cautious of the use of it and Isopropyl and ReyBrujo are both right to remind us that we damage a very useful tool by over-using it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to use BV frequently for a vandal who has vandalized a number of articles, but who was not caught or warned while they were still likely online. Example, I'll be checking my watchlist with VP and find some vandalism that occurred hours prior. Before clicking on Rollback, I'll check their contribs and see that they edited a number of articles and are still on "top" of each. I'll revert all of them and then leave them a BV. I also like to use it for "sneaky vandals", who purposely change facts in articles (more than twice), especially numbers, which are often not noticed by other people. Finally, I will occasionally use a BV, in cases of strong sexual vandalism or some "Colbert" vandalism, but usually if they have already received at least one test prior to that. --After Midnight 0001 01:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin but I keep a lookout for vandalism, and I use BV first either for vandalism-only accts that have had a bunch of vandalism edits within a short period of time without being warned, and for aggressive blanking/vandalism. Just because it's obvious vandalism doesn't mean I BV, but things like blanking with 'Die, Wikipedia f***tards, I'M CUMMING TO YOUR HOUSE' etc get a BV from me. I used to use BV more when I started, mostly because I didn't know any of the other tags, lol. Also because of the rule about not blocking without a BV warning. Anchoress 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also not an admin, my personal philosophy (I try to stick by - sometimes when doing mass rv I jump too soon) is that BV should be used for - well, blatant vandalism. Something that is long and thought out. Simply adding 'Woooo, I can edit here?!' should get a test. This got a BV - it would have taken the person who did it time and effort to change that much that carefully, and could not have been done with good faith. It's a very useful tag, and in the example above allowed that user to be blocked with rapidity when they continued. --Mnemeson 10:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When a vandalism was done in 3.2 seconds, shoot a test. But when it's been carefully put out, and really thinked... and REALLY intentional in bad faith, BV. I personally give a pretty decent number of BV's because for me... blatant vandal is for recurrent vandals and obvious vandalism (like : Terry Dick has, obviously, a big dick). Tests tags are really for TESTS. Especially T1, T2... --Deenoe 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

Okay so can someone please help me out here. I am being harrassed by TV Newser. After a long discussion tonight with a fellow wikipedian, I decided to remove a link section that i posted. This person has now accused me of being a vandal and keeps putting that stupid sockpuppet thing on my user page. The page in question is Trading card. He is calling me Scott and instead of going to the talk page to work it out he's just editing everything. I think there is a limit to the number of reverts and i'm sure we're both in violation. Can someone help me out.

Page is hard to understand...

Can we re-do the hidden text and such? It's really tough to figure out exactly where your report belongs and how you should format it. --172.194.17.163 03:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that difficult. We have 2 sections. Bot reported and user reported. It goes under user reported. As for the format, good rule of thumb on Wikipedia is to try to edit the page and then see how others format the entries. Or you can go through the history. I think the instructions are pretty clear anyway. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh snap. I just realized that when you click the User Alerts deal, it's much better explained-for some reason I kept clicking 'alerts' and got caught up in all the Bot stuff below it.--172.194.17.163 03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The User/IP change helped a bit, thanks. --172.194.17.163 04:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this change makes things more confusing. We humans are supposed to report malfunctioning bots and vandalbots under "User reported", not "Bot reported". The Tawkerbot2 clones and the original get to report on the "Bot reported" section. Jesse Viviano 03:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem when it just says "User" is that it makes it sound like IPs cannot report vandalism, which is incorrect. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

after the final warning

It seems that sometime the after the final warning it is taken in a bureaucratic manner. I reported a vandal (with blatant-test3-test4). In a third vandalism wave (after 30 min), I reported here the vandal, but nearly in the same time a BOT noticed some other vandalism and noticed the user. How to compete to BOT for "final warning"? I think you should ignore bot warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cate (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

As long as there has been *a* final warning (final meaning blatantvandal, test3 or 4, not final as in last) within the last several hours, and the user/IP vandalised after that, it can be reported here. TransUtopian 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot to sign. Anyway: example reports "2 no edits since last warning". There was 4 edits (vandalism) after final (non-bot) warning and a very final BOT-warning. Cate 17:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was the other two IPs that Steel359 didn't block. He blocked the one you reported.
There was one vandal edit after the final warning for the IP reported below yours. Given that it was only one minute after that warning and the IP hadn't edited in the ~12 minutes after that, I assume Steel interpreted that as the person heeding the warning.
The IP below that vandalised after test3 but not test4, both considered "final" warnings, so note that interpretation if you give both warnings. TransUtopian 15:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving warnings

The user Dragonball1986 archived warnings he received today. Is that allowed?--Vercalos 19:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, consensus on this issue has not been reached and it seems like I come across this issue three or four times a day. I'm normally in favor of letting users do what they want with their talk pages, but moving only the warnings and calling it "An Archive of Misinterpretations" seems ... not ... good. (I also hate fake new message boxes, but that's neither here nor there.) I'll talk to him about how he needs to archive chronologically, not by category. -- Merope Talk 19:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that warnings older than, say, a day, ought to be archivable. As long as they're present chronologically in an archive for easy review, warnings older than a day mean much less than the block logs. TransUtopian 19:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't an older warning. It was less than 3 hours old.--Vercalos 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if the user makes a habit of selectively archiving warnings and -- I ran into this a while ago -- outright refusing to put a link to the archive on his talk page, then the archiving process becomes defacto a way of scrubbing legitimate warnings. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He had a link to the archive, but it was under a misleading name, that implied he was simply the victim of misunderstanding. He has renamed it to a literal explanation of what it was, though, since Merope talked to him... And I must agree, the fake new message template annoys me too.--Vercalos 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the incident I mentioned was a bit different. The user made a nonsense edit. The edit was reverted & he was warned. He promptly deleted the warning, so I reverted the deletion & sent him a new warning to not remove talk page warnings. He did some quick reading about archiving and selectively archived all warnings and other critical comments -- but neglected to add a link to the archive page, effectively hiding it. I advised him that this was contrary to the spirit of the rules, and he demonstrated a masterful command of wikilawyering, demanding that I point out specifically where in the rules it said he had to maintain a permanent link. At that point, I decided I had better things to do with my life, so I dropped it in frustration. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict from 2 edits ago) Warnings less than a day old are generally still actionable/relevant, meaning that admins will take them into account when reviewing whether and for how long to block. Also, the warning that Vercalos mentions is also part of a discussion barely a couple hours old. Selectively archiving warnings should be disallowed. All or none to avoid misrepresenting the history. And of course it must be prominently, umambiguously linked from the main talk page to be considered an archive. TransUtopian 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm fine with anyone archiving warning after about a week, if they are otherwise a legitimate editor, and practice a standard archiving solution. If they are not a legitimate editor or a shared ip editor, then leave them up. — xaosflux Talk 00:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that if they archived it under the label "Warnings" it should be OK. --WikiSlasher 07:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that users should be permitted to archive or even delete anything on their talk page. If they are archiving or deleting they've obviously read the warning. I would use verbose edit summaries to make sure the warning stays in their history. Just my 2 cents. L0b0t 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the admins

Big thank you to the admins who regularly clean out this stuff. I'm sure you mostly get grief for doing this, so on behalf of the usually silent majority, Dweller says "ta". --Dweller 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank admins working on XfD, because I'm much rather spend my time here then there. :) The whole process is called community dynamics... NCurse work 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we report spammers for blocking?

Is this the place to get persistent spammers blocked after their last warning (warned with {{spam4}} ) or do I take it to WP:ANI? Thanks, --A. B. 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can take them here. Basically, any persistent infractions of these types of vandalism go here. -- Merope 19:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --A. B. 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question and help needed

I just put {{blatantvandal}} on User talk:Mtwolf because of this: [1]. The user quickly deleted the bv template from his/her talk page. I'd also like to prod the associated image. Some guidance would be sincerely appreciated:
  1. Did I choose the correct template?
  2. What if anything do I do when people delete it from their user page?
  3. How do I prod an image?
Thanks--Ling.Nut 22:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry just add {{wr}} and replace the warning. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New admin- would like to help here

I thought I'd take a stab helping here, and I went through some of the current requests just now, but didn't block anyone because it seemed to me that the user either gave a level4 right out of the gate and/or the vandal hadn't edited again after last warning. Was I right not to block? And if that's the case, do I just remove the report so other admins don't waste their time? Thanks a bunch! --plange 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, a {{test4}} is warranted; it depends on the type of vandalism. If in your judgment, it wasn't severe enough, then there's no problem. Also, not blocking a vandal after he/she stopped vandalizing is perfectly ok; the purpose of warnings isn't to cover your ass when blocking, but rather to make the vandal stop. If the vandal stops, and you didn't have to block, then mission accomplished. Titoxd(?!?) 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the cases where blocking isn't warranted, do we remove the request from this page? --plange 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Alphachimp 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If the vandal stopped 20 hours ago, yes; if the vandal hasn't vandalized in 5 minutes, leave it there. There's no general rule for delisting AFAIK, but usually two hours would suffice. If an editor hasn't been warned, though, just delist it outright. Titoxd(?!?) 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Tito said. And please do remove the reports you find don't warrant blocking. You can say something along "list agin if vandalism resumes" (or whatever is appropriate) in the edit summary so the reporting user won't be afraid to relist the same IP later. If you are really in doubt about whether to block or not, just leave that report listed and let someone else handle it. At least that's what I do ;-). "If in doubt, don't block", is a good rule of thumb. Shanes 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense-- I guess I was just thinking about the sequence as I thought they weren't supposed to be listed here to begin with if they hadn't vandalized at all after a test4 was given. I saw a case here where an editor gave a test4 and then reported them even though they didn't vandalize again after the test4.... sorry for all the questions, just don't want to mess up right out of the gate with my new admin status :-) --plange 03:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to reply-- above was written before Shanes reply (edit conflict) --plange 03:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“We really, really do mean it this time, just you watch out, I’m warning you” template?

If we give "last warnings" after stepping through the sequence, what happens when we report more vandalism at WP:AIV and it's not blocked -- what warning do we use then? "We were just kidding yesterday but we really are serious now?"

Multiple times, I've given the appropriate warnings in accordance with the "grid". Then after those don't work, I've carefully checked off the latest incident against the instructions at WP:AIV:

"Editors: Before listing a vandal here make sure that:"
√ "The vandal has been warned with the appropriate warning templates. If you can't justify leaving these messages on a user's talk page, it likely isn't vandalism."
√ "Users must be appropriately warned using a final warning template, such as {{test3}}, {{test4}} or {{blatantvandal}} before being listed on this page. Users without appropriate final warnings will not be blocked."
√ "The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning."
"Do not list here if:"
√ "The incident is not vandalism but a content dispute."
√ "They have not vandalized very recently (past 24 hours), nor since the last warning ({{test3}} or {{test4}})."
√ "The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., within the previous week)."
√ "The recent vandalism from an IP began hours (or days) after the last warning — it could be a different person."

After doing this, I report the vandal. A little while later the entry is cleared without a block or any intelligible explanation from the WP:AIV list ("list not MT" or "List MT", while important for admins, don't tell the rest of us anything useful). Vandalism reports that don't end in blocks waste admins' time and and can discourage the reporting editors. Even when the right decision is to decline to block, 5 to 10 words of feedback may help reduce inappropriate reports in the future and cut time wasted by admins.

Those cases where an admin does not follow the published blocking criteria and declines to block raises the questions, "Just how many 'last warnings' can you rack up before someone actually blocks you?" and " Can you beat your classmate's record for this sort of thing?" Reduced Wikipedia credibility just encourages more of this stuff.

I know I can always make a "federal case" out of protesting individual WP:AIV decisions, but that wastes time and ruffles feathers. To me, the whole WP:AIV process is about:

  • Upholding Wikipedia's reliability as a source of information for its readers. Someone with thyroid cancer does not need the section on surgery replaced with "Joey has a little wiener".
  • Reducing volunteers' time wasted on cleaning grafitti and protecting theirs and others' work.
  • Maintaining a civil environment in which volunteer editors work motivated primarily by the reward of helping produce something enormously useful.

So here are some small suggestions and observations from a rank-and-file Wikipedian:

  • Consider using informative edit summaries to let others (including the reporting editor) know why you're not blocking someone. The feedback will be useful. (Besides, we're all supposed to use informative summaries anyway, aren't we?)
  • Follow the published check-off criteria on the WP:AIV page. If they're too strict, then change them. In the meantime, not following the published criteria discourages editors from reporting and correcting vandalism. Furthermore, reports that don't end in blocks will have wasted your time as well dealing with them.
  • If you choose for some reason not to block a vandal who does meets the criteria, go ahead and at least warn them so that they do get some sort of warning (and it's on the record for other admins that, once again, they've damaged an article).
  • I can understand why AOL IP addresses might be problematic, but other shared IP addresses (for instance, schools) -- so what if they lose editing privilege for a few days, weeks or months? Not blocking them just prolongs the problem and makes more work for the cleaner-uppers. Blocking them might even draw some useful adult attention to the problem. Besides -- you're not blocking kids from reading Wikipedia -- just altering it.

For every admin, there are 10 to 20 other busy, repeat editors beavering away on Wikipedia so we very much appreciate any help you can give us on this. Thanks, --A. B. 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen shared ips (and individual ips, for that matter) blocked for one month after a lot of vandalism. I guess I could say it is our fault for not reporting shared IPs with a huge background of vandalism to WP:ABUSE. -- ReyBrujo 17:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New warnings are only seen by the user when they finally load another Wiki page (and even then, only if they take the hint of the big orange "NEW TALK" banner). Because of this, I know that users will occasionally be allowed a brief "grace period" after their "final warning". If there's only one more incident of vandalism and then no vandalism up to the moment that an admin finally reads about it in WP:AIV, it's possible that the final warning actually worked and there's no need to block the user, at least, not this time.
Remember, blocks are not meant to be punitive, but rather protective of the encyclopedia.
Atlant 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, I suggest spelling out these informal policies for editors on the WP:AIV page so they better understand what will and won't happen. As for grace periods, I can see your point about vandals at the {{test0}}, {{test1}}, and {{test2}} levels but do we really owe them much grace beyond that? I'd rather save any grace we have for the folks that clean up after them.
As for punitive vs. preventive, I think those two concepts are closely intertwined. Once an anonymous user gets past {{test2}}, they don't seem to be impressed by further warnings from what I can tell. (On the other hand, established members of the community warned for misbehavior do seem to often care about higher level warnings -- but not the anons.)
Meanwhile, for what it's worth, neither punished nor prevented, the two anonymous vandals I futilely reported earlier this week have been at it since occasionally since. I started to report them once again but wrote the above note instead. They're not really doing any big damage so far. --A. B. 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only had my mop for a week, but my biggest surprise was that vandals often do stop after a test4. Whether that's because the warning scares them into compliance or because their ADD makes them lose interest after a while is a separate question. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have few AIV reports because I take my time to warn the user from test1 to test4, sometimes repeating test2 or test3 if I consider there could have been a mid-air collision between his vandalism and my warning. Since Firefox remembers what I have written in my edit summary box, I can say I have 38 test1, 10 test2, 6 test3, 6 test4 and 3 blatant. Spammers are the ones that don't learn. Once they notice they have been caught, they will spam as fast as possible until blocked, contrary to vandals who do this to get some fun. However, abusing the serious tag is not good. Just yesterday I suggested James086 in his peer review to not use the blatant tag in every revert he did. -- ReyBrujo 03:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting observation, but do we owe a higher responsibility vandals or to Wikipedia's readers? We also have to consider all the volunteer-editors busy cleaning up in the meantime as we try to help vandals see the error of their ways. I think the priorities should be on:
  • First and foremost, Wikipedia's reliability and readability for readers outside the community
  • Conserving volunteers' time for more useful and rewarding tasks than erasing graffiti.
--A. B. 19:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) (exasperated volunteer)[reply]
I personally always try to leave a message why I am refusing a block. The most common reason is that the vandal has stopped. Many (if not most) vandal IPs are shared or dynamic, and there is usually no point in giving someone who has already stopped an hour ago a 24hour block.--Konst.ableTalk 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously personalities and block lengths vary between admins. It's very difficult for us to leave a descriptive edit summary, particularly with vandalism in progress. A lot of times, we do leave borderline reports on for further investingation. I turn down very few AIV reports and will block educational IPs with the same long time frames as regular IPs, often until the next academic year. Alphachimp 01:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that seems way too long. I would figure that blocking an educational IP shuts down the ability of any student at that school to contribute to Wikipedia. This seems like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant.
Thus, I would think that the preventive nature of a block should shut down the IP long enough to stop the vandal from doing further vandalism (I figure 2-4 hours which will be enough to block until the end of the school day). If the vandal comes back the next day, then maybe block for 24 hours and if that doesn't work, then block for a week. Blocking until the end of the school year means that students can only read but not edit until the following year. To be willing to do this, you have to believe that students are far more likely to be vandals than valuable contributors. I don't think this attitude is in keeping with Wikipedia's philosophy towards anonymous editing.
--Richard 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not particularly sure on the issue of how long to block school IPs, I'd just like to add my own observations. I've seen several school IPs (90-95% of high schools / elementary schools and equivalents) whose contribs consisted purely of vandalism. Occasionally it's pretty intensive too. You even get conversations and insults between students going. Warning a school-based vandal almost never works, and the chance that the school will do anything about it seems to be close to nil. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I really do understand your point, and I considered it quite a bit when I was first blocking schools. You have to realize, though, that many of these grade schools (we are talking mostly about children age 6-12) have little->no good contributions. They come back to vandalize every day, during the middle of the day (EST), when many sysops are at work. AIV is constantly backlogged, and the vandalism never shows any signs of stopping. Much of it slips through the cracks to be discovered later on during the day, or, worse, through a PR nightmare. Blocking these IPs for long time frames shields us from damage and makes an extremely clear point that their vandalism will not be tolerated. Editors who have already established themselves within the community (e.g. they have a username they made at home) are not affected, as these blocks only influence anonymous users. Further, I see these blocks as promoting education. Children can view Wikipedia, but they are freed from a potential distraction from their classwork. Alphachimp 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have also seen this kind of behavior and I agree that the school will probably not do anything about it. On the other hand, I have seen good work done by high school students who work as anonymous IPs and even one who has been nailed by collateral damage from autoblocks (User:Hildanknight). One important thing is to put a welcome message on the anon's talk page which both welcomes and warns against future vandalism. I would hope that the welcome might encourage some users to create accounts and thus be able to contribute without being affected by the block on the IP address. I would still argue for a series of blocks that gradually increase in length rather than going immediately for a "until the end of the school year" block.
--Richard 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Sorry if I wasn't perfectly clear about that. My usual block pattern is 24h, 48h, 1 week, 2 weeks-1 month, 3-6 months, next schoolyear. As soon as I find out it's a school, I make the blocks Anons Only, and I usually leave a message whereby the school can contact me if the block is an issue. Alphachimp 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't really read, but the title and the first few lines are hilarious, because they're true. Warnings are always : This is your last warning.. Ok boy, STOP IT! OK MAN! FINAL!!!... Okay maybe not, but this time I'm not screwing around!!! We have to do something about this, cause right now its a big bla bla bla. --Deenoe 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. If I wanted to vandalize, I could probably get away with it for a while by gaming the system (i.e. going right up to the 4th warning and then backing off for a few days to a week and then coming back a week later for up to 4 warnings again. Fortunately, most of the students get their ha-has by vandalizing and don't actually learn enough about Wikipedia to know how to game the system in this way.
Unfortunately, if time has elapsed, it's not always obvious if the vandalizer is the same person or a new one using the same IP. So, we're stuck giving him/her the benefit of the doubt and going through the 4 warnings again.
--Richard 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is with the admins on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Either they are outnumbered and overworked, or some of them are just being careless, such as the times they empty the list with "blocked" in the edit summary, and the user's don't get blocked. This is extremely frustrating when you have reported a user who's entire talk page is nothing but warnings, who has been vandalising for months, and still hasn't been blocked. It would save everyone a lot of time if each case were looked at carefully before being discarded. Most of the time one can tell if an ip address has been responsible for a string of vandalisms, as these are usually related somehow.Sfacets 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into the "All blocked, list empty"/but-not-really-empty situation today which very much surprised me. I left a note for the admin. --A. B. 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never done that, but I'm sure it happens from time to time. I think a lot of sysops are annoyed when users bring their content disputes to this page. Sockpuppets (which tend to require investigation) can also be irritating. We need to clarify the purpose of this page...namely...to stop obvious, persistent, current vandalism with a quick block. Alphachimp 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll speak to this issue. Right now, it's fairly difficult to simultaneously maintain (keep synchronized) the actiual blocks, the messages on the users's talk pages, and the contents of WP:AIV. A computer database guy would say that there's no way to do a proper "two-phase commit" on these pages. So you find that often, multiple admins are working on the same stuff, leading to the admins finding someone they're about to block being already blocked, etc. We really need to improve the way we manage this stuff so that we can avoid exactly these sorts of errors attributable to "updating the databases".
Atlant 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A simple protocol would reduce an awful lot of duplication of effort. Before handling a case, simply mark it as "in-progress". The edit conflict system would thus ensure that no two admins were simultaneously working on the same case.
There would be slightly more work involved, but I suspect that the reduction in wasted effort due to two admins trying to handle the same complaint would more than counterbalance this.
Comments? Jakew 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow editing by anons

I think a lot of this could be fixed by requiring editors to have an account and no longer allowing editing by anon. IP addys. L0b0t 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. --Deenoe 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, although I sympathize with the sentiment, I disagree and this would take the discussion in a totally different direction and one that does not belong here. I fully understand the desire to stop vandalism by anon users but it is a strong component of Wikipedia philosophy to encourage contributions from anonymous users and many valuable contributions have come from anonymous users. --Richard 01:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for example, User:69.145.123.171. Snoutwood (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's an exception. :p Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when they alert us to thier friends sexual prefrences. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS} 01:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be to radical. However keeping anonymous users on a shorter leash (ie stricter vandalism policy) could be a good idea. After all, if someone has the time to edit scores of documents, why can't he/she take the time to fill out the 20 second registration process, or even shorter sign in process? Sfacets 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question as to whether Wikipedia allows edits from anonymous IP addresses is beyond the scope of this particular thread/section -- maybe start a new section below this one to that question? --A. B. 02:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Banning edits from anon IPs is completley against WP:AGF. We should assume that anons come here with good intentions. Why keep thousands of people from editting, destroy our motto, and break one of our sacred policies just to lower vandalism levels?--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that no one is banning them from editing, all they have to do is sign up. Sfacets 03:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nearly continual discussion about this in and around Wikipedia, you might take it to WP:VP (Village Pump) but I'm not sure how far you will get. It's one of those perennials. It would take a real sea change for that to happen and I don't see it happening anytime soon. Rx StrangeLove 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It IS a perennial.
Moreover, it is so much a fundamental part of Wikipedia that it has recently been cited as one of the principles of an ArbCom case . This is the principle...
12.1.10 Many edit anonymously
For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians, including many administrators, edit anonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously increases participation.
Ignore the above text. Hildanknight is right in his comment below. I misinterpreted what was meant in an ArbCom case|the ArbCom case by "edit anonymously". A clear case of preconceived notion ruling over actual reading and understanding. Sorry.
--Richard 04:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in many, many places across Wikipedia and strongly rejected every time.--Konst.ableTalk 04:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then if anon-editing is cast in stone and not really subject to discussion, perhaps there also needs to be a shorter fuse for blocking vandalistic anons -- that is if Wikipedia's to keep its volunteers and readers. --A. B. 05:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can agree to that. I personally think 4 warnings is way too many. I would go for two warnings: three strikes and you're out for a short block. Each subsequent vandalism within a short period of time (24 hours) and the number of warning is dropped by one. That is, after a block, one warning is all you get. After a second block, you get no warnings, just an immediate block.
I wouldn't go for a whole 'nother round of four warnings each time around. That's just wasting everybody's time.
--Richard 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Richard has misread the statement he quoted from the arbitration case. (Note that I've corrected the capitalization of the link he provided - I don't know if it's OK to edit others' comments that way.)

In 12.1.9 of the arbitration case, it is stated:

Users, including administrators, may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously.

On Wikipedia, editing "anonymously" has two meanings. The first meaning is "editing without being logged into an account". The second meaning is "editing without disclosing personal information". The usage of the word "anonymously" in 12.1.9 refers to the second meaning, and it is reasonable to expect that the usage in 12.1.10 also refers to the second meaning. However, Richard thought that the usage in 12.1.10 referred to the first meaning.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of "last-warning/extra-last-warning/we-really-mean-it-this-time/don't-make-me-do-it" pages

Here are some good "last-warning/extra-last-warning/we-really-mean-it-this-time/don't-make-me-do-it" pages:
--A. B. 03:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User talk: 210.18.215.131#October 2006 -- last blocked Sept 15 -- block requested 26 October but declined

Thing is... I've checked two of the IPs, they belong to schools... --Deenoe 11:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand -- I've seen blocks applied against schools before. Why accept vandalism from schools? I understand this may becoming from shared computers, but do we have an obligation to allow edits from these computers? Peruse the contributions from those accounts and see just how much they've really added to Wikipedia -- and how much they've taken away. Consided how much time has been wasted by volunteers (and former volunteers) cleaning this stuff up. Consider the effect on Wikipedia's readers of vandalism and blanking that doesn't get caught right away. Why put up with this stuff?
Should we stop warning these accounts with "You will be blocked" -- by this schools-are-sacred logic, we're threatening an outcome that's not supposed to happen.
How often do school administrators complain about IP blocks? The Foundation gets all sorts of complaints and threats every day in the mail but I'll bet school administrator complaints don't constitute a busy category. In fact, to the extent any are aware their schools IP addresses are getting blocked, they're probably glad of it.
Finally, when prolific editors quit, ongoing, ineffectively policed vandalism is among the reasons they cite.
--A. B. 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I found a school that actually was quite vocal in complaining, the University of Westminster. See 161.74.11.24 (talk · contribs). Admins tried blocking this address for chronic vandalism in March 2006 but backed down after complaints by the school. The school even put its own "You better watch out -- we will track down vandals internally" on the talk page -- but the vandalism continued. A great collect of "last warnings" since then. --A. B. 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually a few that do. And actually, one of the school accounts in the UK was shut down due to an admin who is also an admin at the school. I forget which one. I don't see what you are proposing happening. Wikipedia tends to assume good faith and blocking schools because 90% of the users perform vandalism would be assuming bad faith and I just don't see it happening anytime soon. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith does not require consistently giving a pass. Here's the language straight out of the official policy:
  • This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.
The first sentence is bold in the actual policy as well. --A. B. 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about no temporary blocks for IP addys. If you abuse from an IP address the block is permanent, if you want to start an account you will be welcome to do so. As for schools, who cares if they complain, the problem is on their end not ours. Again signing up for an account makes this whole problem go away. L0b0t 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good God no. -- Steel 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Design contest for best new template

Hey -- how about a design contest for the best new template in the category of "this is your last warning and I really mean it so please, please stop, OK?"
Heck, I'd even chip in $2 via PayPal to the winner -- and a Barnstar!
--A. B. 03:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Stop vandalizing, or I will shoot you.
--KojiDude (Contributions) 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nice start -- it's what I'd use if I could, but I was thinking more along the lines of something a little whiny that would reflect what actually happens. Keep at it, however, there's a shiny new barnstar out there for someone! Here's a place to submit your entries: User:A. B./New warnings I'd like to see

Added my "warning" to your page. --Deenoe 11:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=83881160"