Wikipedia talk:Revised vandalism warning system

A bit harsh?

This all seems like the existent policy, save the "going nuclear" without warning for newer users. I agree that blatant vandals need to be dealt with more harshly than the casual vandal, but I also think that some level of warning must be given. If we can reclaim one vandal out of ten and make them into a good contributor, it's worth the time it takes to put a warning template or two on their talk page. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As it is there are dozens of different warning templates (such as level 1 through 4 warnings). I think that vandal fighting could be more efficient if this was simplified to three templates or so.--Azer Red Si? 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this policy is a bit too harsh towards new users. I would prefer at least one warning before indefinitely blocking them. Simplifying the warning system is definitely a good idea, I just think that we can do that without being overly harsh. --Danaman5 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wiling to revise it, but one thing I see happening too often is blatant vandal accounts being given three or four warnings before finally being blocked, and even then only for, say, 24 hours.--Azer Red Si? 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with even a one warning system for vandal accounts like the ones you describe. --Danaman5 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made a revision which includes that now.--Azer Red Si? 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why its nice

There are 2 reasons why this sounds good and especially for users that register in the first place. First, we tell them that its a do things the right way or go somewhere else. Second, by doing that, we don't loose sight of vandals that will go to lesser watched page and continue their vandalism without being seen. Lincher 04:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block is too harsh

I'm fine with blocking after one warning (so long as people remember that it's possible for a warning to be posted as a vandal is hitting a second page, and thus they might not see the warning until after violating it). However, an indefinite block is way too much. People like to mess around and experiment, and that's fine, because it shows them that we're serious about this "anyone can edit" thing. I say stick with the short-term blocks at first, and go for more later, just like now.

I like the simplified messages though. Sometimes it's nice to be able to use a different test template based on the tone you want to give, but fewer would probably suffice. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to bother with a few blocks here and there if a registered account's first few edits are posting pictures of penises on the featured article, for instance. Having to constantly watch the accounts and give increasingly longer blocks is just a waste of admin time. In the case of IPs or accounts that have a significant good history of edits, though, there should be more leeway.--Azer Red Si? 06:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree with this proposal

First, I don't think it is needed. The vandalism policy already states that warnings need not be used in succession, so editors already have discretion in terms of escalating warnings.

Second, it seems to violate WP:BITE.

Third, in my experience many vandals stop after a test3 or test4. Seems once they see that word "block," many suddenly lose interest. Blocking can always cause collateral damage to other editors using the same IP, so it it better to avoid blocking if the vandal will agree to stop.

Fourth, what seems to be the greatest waste of time for an admin patrolling WP:AIV is not the occasional IP that needs progressively longer blocks; rather it is editors reporting vandals before properly warning them. For each such report an admin has to sort through a talk page and a contribs page, leave a final warning, and return to comment at WP:AIV, in a situation in which a final warning would likely have stopped the vandalism without blocking. This proposal would likely only exacerbate that problem.

--Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I could not agree more strongly. Perfect, Gingko. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ginko. - Che Nuevara 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I would gently suggest that you are frustrated with vandalism, and while there IS some clarification and pruning to be done on Category:User warning templates (I went through that one by one the other day, and there's a lot that isn't even covered in the standard warning grid), this is too draconian. Remember that assume good faith is a fundamental principle here, not a convenient statement of good will. If the current warning system is too arcane, perhaps you'd like to help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings? -- nae'blis 21:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just adding to Nae'blis's comments above and in response to the project page, we are trying our best at WP:UW to bring some harmony to all these templates. This includes a new vandalism template as already mentioned. Take a look at the proposed overview and if you are so inclined offer to lend a hand, please volunteer your services. I think we cover most of this revised system and is already part of our guidleines. But just to re-iterate, I know it becomes difficult when you use vandalism tools to see the good in edits after you've reverted "John smells of poo" for the 20th time. But the object of issuing warnings isn't about how fast a block can be issued, but to re-educate and to see blocks as an unfortunate by product. I personally have issued warnings, then the anon IP has apologised and become a normal editor. Also I'm with Ginko, lets not be too eager to bite the newbie. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Incremental approach: Consolidate test2 and test3?

In my experience, many vandals stop vandalizing after test1 or test2 is used. Therefore, I think the current softer approach is working and it avoids running afoul of WP:BITE, which is a valid concern expressed above. However, I question the usefulness of test3. Once a user has seen test2 and nevertheless decides to continue vandalizing, why should they be entitled to receiving two more warnings? Under the current warning system, a user is allowed to commit at least 5 vandalism edits before being blocked. I agree that the volume of vandalism needs to be reduced, but perhaps consolidating test2 and test3 would lead to faster blocks for die-hard vandals while preserving the softer approach for new users who are only testing. An incremental approach such as this deserves a chance before making drastic changes as advocated in the original proposal. With regard to increasing the use of indef blocks, this could be counterproductive, as it would only encourage vandals to create block-evading sock accounts. My proposal for a revised test2:

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Accurizer 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This has already been done within the WP:UW framework. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I would advocate giving the newly proposed system (the WP:UW framework) time to work before considering this proposal. Accurizer 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go along with this (but I have a suggestion myself), but your also going to need to change the spam framework for the same reason, and you might want to bring in users like User:AmiDaniel who's responsible for the VandalProof software. There's a lot of programs out there which could need rewrites to remove any warnings which are made redundant and to make t3 the final warning before a block.

The test warnings have been, I feel, hijacked for the purpose of warning and allowing vandals to be blocked and I would like to see test being used for alerting new users that they've perhaps broken something whereas I would prefer a dedicated vandalism warning for those who are making deliberate malicious edits to Wikipedia. I'd suggest we start off with test1 for all good faith edits and suspected vandalism before moving onto test2, test3 and test4 for good faith editors who are breaking bits of Wikipedia (perhaps test2 or test3 edits could feed into a category and then experienced users and admins can help out with a little advice or something) whereas proper vandalism would move onto a vandal1 warning asking the user to stop and a vandal2 warning that if they don't stop they will be blocked without further notice, per the existing test4. I'd suggest that the test edits be a little less abrasive to genuine good faith editors and that the dedicated vandalism warnings outline exactly what steps Wikipedia will take to prevent vandalism. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, I spammed AmiDaniel, here and most of the other VP cabal mid october about this, plus it's also been in the Signpost, and spammed on the administrators notice board as well as individual messages. So alot of the active VPers have been already made aware of this. It's actual effect on VP hopefully should be minimal as if you look at the overview page we have put a comprehensive list of redirects in place that will be implemented when we start the changeover (possibly in a month or so), so hopefully there will be no holes in the system.

You mentioned that you felt the test warnings had been hijacked. Because they are a well worded warning and fit the majority of cases they have become the global panacea for vandal fighting. But it is naïve to be calling blatant vandalism a test and assumes just a tad too much good faith. But as I said above we don't want to bite the newbie too much, who is doing tests and seems to be a first time editor etc. So the vandalism warnings will eventually replace the test warnings as the standard warning for RC patrollers, and the test warnings will become a non blockable warning, i.e. test levels 0 - 2 and any more than that and we cannot continue to AGF so the fourth level warning will go over to {{vandalism3}}. As was mentioned by Ginko, one is not obligated to give warnings in a sequential order, but to achieve a fair block an administrotor must see that an editor has been given sufficient amount of warnings. Azer red, I have had no problems with admins and blocks being issued with the following. A repeater vandal gets two warning i.e. test2 then a 4, and a newbie gets three warnings, and I think you'll find most admins will be supportive with this system. This is where we come in at WP:UW by reducing the warnings from effectively 5 to 4, we should be removing some of the ambiguity in the warnings, and allow you to achieve blocks quicker but still have a light enough approach for first time editors. If you want any more info don't hesitate to ask. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. My experience is that if you give somone a test3 warning you are also going to give them a test4. Rettetast 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised version of Template:Test

I still think that this is a better version of the template:

Welcome to Wikipedia. While this may not have been your intent, your recent edits have been unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, or if you simply want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you need any assistance, please contact the one who left you this message.--Azer Red Si? 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Toning it down

I agree that blatant vandalism - vandalism that is obviously malicious - deserves harshness. Thus, I agree with the first two templates you suggest; however, I think your template for dealing with non-obvious vandalism is perhaps a bit too strong. When it is not obvious whether an edit was simply a mistake or true vandalism, I think that it's extremely important to err on the side of being too forgiving and understanding. I think every editor on Wikipedia is tempted to blow vandals out of the water on sight, but we have to balance that with being too harsh and thus scaring away new editors who could turn into dedicated contributors. In my opinion, saying "while this may not have been your intent, your recent edits have been unconstructive and have been reverted or removed" is perhaps a bit too forceful, although it is rather conciliatory already. If there's a large possibility that a new user's edits were well-meant, it's probably a good idea to treat them as if they were. Quaerere 04:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the folks above who are against this proposal, or, like Quaerere, are concerned about biting newbies. I think we vandal fighters tend to overestimate the malisciousness of a lot of edits; I know I've done it. I think a lot of kids don't understand how frowned upon it is here to post "poo" or whatever into articles. On three separate occasions, during friendly (real life) conversations with people, I've said I'm enthusiastic about wikipedia, and they've talked about how they vandalized or created nn-bio articles, apparently without having any idea that I wouldn't think that was great! They're all nice people that could potentially contribute constructively. This type of thing suggests to me that folks just don't understand the extent to which we don't like it when they vandalize. So I think more discussion of it, in the form of test templates, is a good idea. Another thing is that I'm concerned about is the fact that this proposal calls page blanking "clear vandalism", when in fact I think it's often a newbie error or some other innocent thing (e.g., [1]). Lastly, I've found that discussion with vandals has had positive results (e.g. [2], and [3]), so we should err on the side of explaining things better. Lastly, maybe something like this will be merited if the vandalism situation grows beyond what we can handle, but right now I think we have it under control; usually pages are quickly reverted. But I guess what that comes down to is personal opinion on how bad it is to allow a few more instances of vandalism before a block. delldot | talk 04:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned about posting false but credible information in articles. That, in my opinion, is the worst form of vandalism possible, because it may not be caught immediately and has the potential to seriously damage Wikipedia's credibility.--Azer Red Si? 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But how is a different warning system going to help against this? Most of this type of vandalism comes from anonymous IP's and unfortunately after their hours spree on wikipedia between 'pimp up my playstation' or 'nerd in the middle' they move on. Dishing out a warning after the act is pointless, unless you catch them in the act all these warnings do is just give out collateral damage. I must admit I do laugh when I see editors reporting to AIV (with the best intention in the world I may add) leaving messages about anonymous IP's who had a T4 warning last month and has just had the audacity to vandalise again and we must block them on sight. When in likelyhood it's a completely different editor. I know it's unfortunate and make us seem impotent, but with this type of vandalism you just have to rely on the expert on the subject having the article in their watchlist and correcting it as soon as they seen it, or look at the edit history to see if they' vandalised in the past, and do some quick research yourself google is your friend. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 07:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Azer Red, maybe we can use existing methods like WP:RFI for listing and getting others to watch sneaky vandals, or use something like the proposed User:Dar-Ape/Persistent vandalism page. We can also blacklist the IP's on the bots in the vandalism IRC channels. With sneaky vandalism, if it's any good at being sneaky, it's especially hard to determine whether it's vandalism. Thus blocking with fewer warnings would be especially likely to affect non-vandals. delldot | talk 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What happaned to good faith?

I strongly disagree with these proposed warnings. If a new user makes a mistake, threating to block them would only scare them leave. Let's not bite them. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To be brutally honest (and perhaps highly contraversial, but that's something I'm hoping against! lol), it's pretty hard to assume good faith when an edit is blatant and obvious vandalism sometimes. While undoubtedly a small proportion af vandal edits may be made in good faith, or by a user of a persons account/net connection other than he or she that registered the account, it seems pretty unlikely that the majority could be considered as such. I'm a huge AGF fan, but in all honesty, I would have to say that there are occasions where its observance actually does damage to the encyclopedia by allowing vandals to run loose far longer than they should be allowed to.

Might I suggest instead that vandals are blocked for short period (an hour or two?) after their second vandalistic edit (where no positive contributions exist between them) with a final warning that they will be blocked far longer if it happens again within the next day or two? (for anon-IP's, this would obviously be an anon-block). This should hopefully cut down on the amount of vandalism around by making it a bit more tedious and frustrating to vandalise wiki, while avoiding being too harsh on those who do actually have good intentions to be assumed (provided (per your above message) that the warnings and block messages are friendly enough).

It's just an idea really, and it may not be a perfect solution, but It's somthing to think about (perhaps!). After all, being blocked for a short priod (no more than an hour or two) shouldn't be a problem for those with good intentions, and they can always appeal too. for a vandal though, it would mean having to go through the process of registering a new account, and if their IP is anon-blocked, they'd have to find and change to a proxy to do it too (or obtain a different dynamic IP), which is a further pain in the proverbial bottom. Crimsone 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Close discussion?

Well, no one's edited this page in almost a week, and it doesn't look like we're going to come to consensus on this proposal. Should we close discussion and put a {{rejected}} template on the page, or is it too early yet for that? delldot | talk 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, without prejudice against revisiting the debate at a later date. >Radiant< 14:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)