Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much vandalism, personal pages; I do not know where to say so.

[[ hopiakuta, Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. 03:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't block

Anyone else getting this warning when trying to apply a block? Hiberniantears (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, same here. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh oh... Hiberniantears (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Something's wrong... - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
@Wysprgr2005 - That would be because you're not an administrator :P — neuro(talk)(review) 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be fine for me! --GedUK  20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Same here; must have been worked out. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah yea..well...nvm that. I had been getting some error pages while trolling WP though. - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Spammers who are also taggers

What's the proper response when a person has only 3 contribs: they post a page that's deleted as spam promoting their own company, they add a spam link to another article, and they slap an unwarranted db-spam on a competitor's company, all within the last 24 hours? Are there any special warnings along the lines of "If you continue to use deletion tags on competitors' articles, you'll be blocked"? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There's {{subst:uw-generic4}}, but that's a bit bitey unless you're convinced the user is acting maliciously rather than just as a newbie who thinks his competitor's articles have no more right to be on Wikipedia than their own. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You could, of course, just write them a warning manually. I for one take manual warnings as seriously when i patrol AIV. --GedUK  09:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I haven't posted something here before, and I'm not sure how. I want to note that this user is probably not Grawp, but the references used are similar. BOZ (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The account has been clobbered. Next time, just put it on the main page; the AIV patrollers may grumble a bit, but good faith reports are never disdained - the worst that can happen is that they are declined, go stale, and are removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV notation templates

Are AIV notation templates to be used by admins only, or can any established user use them? Montgomery' 39 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Some may be more appropriate for admins than others, but if it's the right template then feel free to add it yourself. Accepting or declining blocks is usually only done by admins, but adding extra notes to help admins in that process can sometimes be helpful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I find it to be very helpful when editor (admin or not) comment on cases which aren't of the regular 'vanilla' (or plain) type. This can help speed up work, especially when there is a backlog. I think I'm gonna go add a note to the header about this though, good question. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy school IP blocks

What is the general policy/guideline/practice on long term blocks of IP addresses that belong to a school or are shared by an institution? I tend to block only for a few days to a couple of weeks in such cases but I've seen blocks as long as a year from other admins. Since these IPs are shared by a large and transient population, wouldn't this be unnecessarily restrictive? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is simply the sheer volume of clean up work that can result from one ip; in some places there seems to be a culture of no supervision of computer access, the kids are bored, they are all reading the same page... the temptation to "add amusing comments" for the entertainment of their peers is likely very strong (and once someone starts, then it is open season). Generally, those school ip's with year long blocks start with a history that includes day long sanctions and build toward the recurring 12 month - but for instance I go straight from 1 week blocks to 3 months, to remove the source of disruption for one term. Once a culture of vandalising WP takes hold then blocking them long term is the only answer. The schoolblock template provides ample guidance for anyone with a real desire to contribute to create an account, and there is the unblock option in case a teacher, lecturer or otherwise responsible adult wishes to try to allow supervised access to editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin (don't see myself wanting the mop), but I've argued for treating school and other shared IPs like any other vandal - LessHeard vanU sums it up really well. --Philcha (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact school IPs are quite different from other vandals, namely user accounts, dynamic IPs, and other shared IPs. With user accounts you know that the only person with access to the account is the same person who did the previous vandalism. With dynamic IPs you can reasonably expect the IP to be assigned to someone making constructive edits. With school IPs, though the IP may belong to the same organisation, there is very likely to be a different user the next time it's used. However one can generalise from the previous edits what the standard is likely to be over a long time. It is not uncommon to see every single edit over the IP's lifetime, a year or more, being vandalism from different users. They are quite unique in this consistency. Shared IPs belonging to universities, companies, and even some schools, should be considered more carefully as there is likely to be a reasonable proportion of constructive edits and therefore higher collateral. One should balance the vandalism against the collateral when blocking shared IPs, and a review of the contributions is useful for doing this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks. This is useful and food for thought. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidental rollback

Before I get comments about "Why did you undo something on the project page", I accidentally clicked rollback on my watchlist to cause this edit. My apologies, doing too many things at once. --Matt (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

When do warnings become stale?

I reported Special:Contributions/115.187.16.2, when they vandalized after a final warning that had been issued four days before. One admin (User:LessHeard vanU) said the warning was stale, another (User:PhilKnight) blocked the address from editing. It would be a good idea to get all admins and reporters on the same page on this issue, so how recently need warnings be? Skomorokh 11:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Warnings are issued to users, not IP addresses. The nature of today's edit was quite different from the previous spam from this IP address, and from the previous possibly constructive edit, so it is a fair assumption that the user of the IP address has never seen any warnings at all. In general we try not to block users who have never received any warning except in the case of most egregious vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's always going to be a fuzzy issue. If it's a different user, then a report can stale very rapidly. The best thing to do is to look at the contributions, and decide for yourself if you believe it to be the same user. If you don't, restart the warning level. If you do, continue from the current warning level, and explain why you believe it to be the same editor in any AIV reports. You can't just leave the decision to the processing admin, because your actions need to be different based on what you believe to be true.—Kww(talk) 12:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In the case of an IP, it generally has to be judged on a case by case basis, as an IP that make a combination of constructive edits and vandalism at different times is probably representative of different people editing through that address. On the other hand, an IP that only vandalises can be on a shorter leash. Also factoring into the decision is whether or not the vandalism is ongoing, or if the contributions pattern reveals someone who continually vandalizes up to a third warning before stopping for a day. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The Whois indicates the address is 'assigned non-portable', and all of the edits are in the last few weeks, so I didn't assume there were multiple users. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a common misunderstanding. 'Non-portable' has nothing to do with whether it is assigned to different users. The Whois also describes that it is part of a NAT, which indicates that it is shared by different users. It definitely looks like a different user to me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Technically speaking, "ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE" is one of four types of status attributes used for an inetnum object. Without boring you with all the gritty details, you can think of it as essentially meaning that this IP address has been assigned to a single organization (an ISP, company, etc.) for their own use and may not be sub-assigned to someone else (like a customer). — Kralizec! (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
My view, as I didn't check the whois, was that the style of vandalism was different - rearranging text in a disruptive manner against removal of blocks of content - enough to make me feel that these were two individuals, and the warning against the first was too long ago to have meant anything to the then current editor. Another admin felt differently; which is fine and one of the reasons why we like to spread stuff around. Often, it is simply how one admin reads it - it isn't even in the realms of "inexact science", it is just the application (or not) of the tools that the community has entrusted us with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's all well and good if timing is "always going to be a fuzzy issue", but if that is the case, perhaps you (plural) should stop using templates that say things like "Stale report - last warning issued X days ago and use one's that make it clear the boundaries are vaguer and more of a judgement call on the part of the responding admin/clerk. And on a second point, if WHOIS can provide useful data, why not have the helper bots append it to the reports? Regards, Skomorokh 02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I always note that my comments are just that; an expressed opinion. I assume the same of other admins comments. I have blocked in instances where there is a comment to the effect that it is not active, where I note what is being vandalised is a common target of a sock range, investigate and determine it is likely to be that returning vandal - I block on the basis that the editor has been long warned, and to close that address for a possible quick return. Again, other admins draw their own conclusions. This is why the advice nutshell on the page says, especially for ip addresses, that the vandalism should be obvious and ongoing. The more obvious it is, the more likely sysops are going to agree to act upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
fwiw, the whois says that the address 115.187.16.2 is part of a netblock from 115.187.16.0 to 115.187.16.15, and has a comment saying "all the private ip of EVDO Rev A and EVDO 1X will NAT to these IP" - which basically means that within these 15 addresses, you've got all the users of a whole Nepalese mobile phone network. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Which means the IP should probably be tagged with the {{MobileIP}} template so that blocking admins understand the brevity is a good thing. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Repeat vandal" template

What significance is attached to Template:Repeat vandal which says "Further abuse from this IP address may result in an immediate block without further warning"? I ask (not taking offence, but for information) after a recent AIV report of an IP with this template displayed and a #3 warning was declined "User insufficiently warned". I had taken the template to be more or less a standing final warning; or does it just mean that when a block is earned it will be a long one? JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Many templates added to talk pages are overused and should be completely ignored. For the sake of discussion it will help to link to the actual IP:
194.83.56.130 (talk · contribs · block log)
It stopped editing immediately after a level 2 warning and was removed from AIV as "stale" after it hadn't edited for an hour. This seems reasonable as the user had obviously heeded the warning and gone away. There was no need for an immediate block, and the user had not received or ignored any warnings that they may be blocked. However, there is a longer pattern of disruption from this IP, which AIV is not really geared to deal with. This is an incredibly busy board, for swift action against active vandals. Anything which isn't an active vandal is likely to be removed mercilessly. Sometimes you will be lucky and there will be an admin who takes the time to review all contributions from the IP over the long term. But that's not really what this noticeboard is good for. It may be that the admin saw the potential for good contributions from the IP, and decided that we should only worry about today's vandal, who had stopped and didn't need blocking. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't link because I wasn't complaining about this particular case: my question was really, what notice should I take of this template when I see it on a vandal's talk page? It sounds as if the answer is, not a lot: and in fact I see that the current version doesn't threaten an immediate block, only "Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block", so I guess it addressed to the blocking admin rather than the reporting vandal-hunter. JohnCD (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that {{repeat vandal}} is a waste of time that should have been send to TfD long ago. Very few -if any- admins are going to block an IP just because they are labeled with this scarlet lettre, especial since the official WP:BLOCK policy requires that "before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines." Given the often highly-shared nature of IPs, the template only encourages bad faith assumptions. If we just automatically had school and anon blocks on every educational institution and ISP IP address, it would be a different story, but since we AGF, this template is worse than useless because the vandals do not care, admins are not going to block without justification, and the people who think the message means something are just going to get frustrated when admins decline blocks. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. Some reconsideration of the template's use might be in order... – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV helperbot

Hi, just an issue I've had a few times with the AIV helperbot: If a user has been blocked then the bot will remove them from the AIV page. But normally when a user is blocked they are allowed to edit their talk page (to request an unblock). Now some users (naming no names ;) ) will vandalise their own talk page ( :o ). They get reverted, reported here, and the bot removes them before any admin gets a chance to see the report (because they are blocked). Now would it be possible for the helperbot to, when removing a user, check if the blocked user's last edit was to their talk page, and also (possibly), check if that edit was reverted. If it was, then put a note underneath saying something like "This user is blocked, but may have been vandalising their talk page"? Hope all of that makes sense, thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ops, should this have been put here? :/ - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I find it useful to check the "watch user and talkpage" box on the block form (or click "watch" on the talkpage when placing a "you've been blocked" tag) to keep an eye out for talkpage vandalism by recently-blocked users. Tonywalton Talk 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Me too. Dlohcierekim 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
But I still often see vandals managing to vandalise their talk pages and end up reporting them directly to an admin (I can drag up some diffs if need be). It's not like any harm would come from my idea. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I used to have the same problem occasionally in my pre-admin days. You can always report such abuse manually on this talk page, or at WP:ANI. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... This just struck me as a way of keeping things in the right place. Plus, AN/I is scary ;), and it just takes slightly longer then AIV. But I guess it doesn't matter massively if the edits are to the user's talk page, as it's the mainspace vandalism which is important to clean-up quickly. In future I'll take it to AN/I. Thanks all for your comments :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New template?

Would it be worth considering producing a new template, say {{talkvandal}}, for use in the above situation which would be similar to {{vandal}}/{{ipvandal}}, but would be ignored by the bots? It would have a note to say that it would have to be removed manually. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, although it would be a bit different from the other templates which might cause confusion. I mean, is the template going to explain that the user is vandalising their page (i.e. *{{talkvandal|ClueBot}} - ~~~~) or is the user who's leaving the template (i.e. *{{talkvandal|ClueBot}} blocked user is vandalising their page. - ~~~~)? Personally I think the first example is better. Also, would this require the bot to be "told" not to remove the template, or would it just ignore it? - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the first case, as it would only be used for thhat one scenarion. I don't know how the bots work - I'll do some trials later today if there's any support for this idea. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Kingpin13 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok - I'll run some tests... —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've established that {{talkvandal}} doesn't get automatically cleaned up by the bots if the user is blocked. However, it will get cleaned up as a comment if the user above in the list is blocked (see [1]). Some alteration to the bot coding will be required to prevent this, if there's a consensus to use this template. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it would be nice (and best) for the bot to not remove this as a comment. An alternative would be to simple always put it at the top. - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I went directly to WP:ANI for Justicefornobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He started posting inflammatory comments on his talk page after being indef blocked, but the report would have been removed immediately had I posted it here. Maybe is there a way this could be fixed? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I tend to think we should ignore "caged tigers" -- once they're blocked, paying them further attention only keeps them engaged and encourages further disruption, where we might be better off simply focusing our attention on the next vandalism problem in content space. That said, a template of this nature might be helpful in some situations; if it won't work here, WP:AN/I should do in a pinch. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, doesn't seem to be any major objection. So is everybody alright if I add a note on the AIV page, looking some what like:
<!-- The following are examples of how to report a vandal on this page.

 Talk Page Vandals (after block):
 * {{talkvandal|username}} ~~~~
 Add talk page vandals after this line, ONLY if the user is blocked and vandalising their page -->


 <!-- Please copy and paste an appropriate example to the very bottom of the page.

 Anonymous Users (IP addresses):
 * {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~

 Registered Users:
 * {{Vandal|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
 * {{Userlinks|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~

 List begins BELOW this line -->
Or is that making it look too complex?- Kingpin13 (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added it. Let me know if you have any objections - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The bots just undid your edit. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/instructions will have to be updated. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh huh, I was just having a look to see how they'd reacted ;). However, I can't edit that page. Could some admin please? Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I could do that...there doesn't seem to be much objection here. The bots will ignore the talkvandal template? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yup, some tests on the AIV page (as it is at the moment) say so - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, um...uh oh...the bots are now fighting over which version of the instruction block is correct...Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hum... My guess is that this is something to do with having two "openings". We could have it as before and just put a note saying to add the {{talkvandal}} to the top? - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Shutdown

I've shutdown helperbot2 and helperbot 7 until this problem is resolved. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 3RR has it's uses eh? ;) We need someone who knows how the bots work... It says they only update every half hour, so this could be the problem, but so could a number of other things - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(Five and Three still going strong) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Bots fighting is amusing, but shutting them down was good! I'm guessing they've not been updated quite the same, should be an easy fix for the owner. --GedUK  07:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's hope so. I see that Tivedshambo has notified people, so untill then... - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, they seem to be under control now, and removing blocked reports, so fingers crossed. I'll keep an eye on it for a bit. --GedUK  07:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Current situation is that 5 is still active, 2, 3 and 7 are shutdown. If there's only one active, hopefully it won't edit war! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you want me to shutdown 5? I have access to the shell now and will do so if required... — JamesR ≈talk≈ 07:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5 seems to be doing quite well. Was blocked, and then unblocked. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay then, let me know if you want it killed, via talk page would be better. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 07:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm going offline for a while (boss watching me!) - can someone else unblock the bots when the problem is sorted. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See my edit here. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 07:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, the issue is that the existence of multiple redundant bots wasn't really considered when the instruction block replacing code was written, I think. The bots don't all check the instruction page at exactly the same time, so they have different versions cached, and fight each other as everyone saw. My first thought of a fix would be to include a version number in the instruction block page, or some other type of indicator that the bots could read and say "oh, hey, my version might be out of date, so let's update before I try to correct it". That shouldn't be too terribly difficult to add, I'll see what I can do. It should be safe to unblock them all at this point if they haven't already been unblocked because they would have had a chance to all be in sync on the instructions by now. —Krellis (Talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The instruction block text was reverted after this morning's problems, so the situation will presumably recur if it's changed again. One solution may be to change the header to FixInstructions=Off (something I wasn't aware it was possible to do earlier) for half an hour to give the bots time to catch up. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would definitely work - if you turned it off, made the change, then waited an hour to be safe (in case you caught one of the bots right after it re-loaded - though even still 31 minutes should be sufficient) before turning it back on that would work. Longer term we should probably fix the underlying problem, but that would work for now. Also, I wouldn't advise making it two comment blocks as was done the first time - there's really no need to do so, and it MIGHT cause some different problems to surface, the bot code kind of assumes the instructions are a single comment block. —Krellis (Talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Easy enough to do that, just struck me as better because it was leaving most of it as it was before (so as not to cause confusion). Anyway, this is gonna give us just over 30 minutes where we don't have bots clearing this up, so admins who are going to be on during that time should be warned - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, turning off FixInstructions will only stop the bots from fixing the instruction block, they'll still remove blocked users. So it shouldn't be a big deal, as the instruction block doesn't really get messed up that often anyway. —Krellis (Talk) 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Where do you change that to off then? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalisim Problem - Help needed

We have posted repeated warning for the following user over a period of time. Now his "edits" are targeting other articles in deliberate harrasment and vandalisim. Any suggestions? He refuses to discuss or comment or respond to emails. I know who his employer is and I would really not want to go there.

Iwanafish aka 160.244.140.202 This is a warning for your continuing disruptive edits and deliberate vandalisim on Rehoboth Carpenter family,Culham and now John Carpenter (bishop).

You refuse to discuss, talk or converse. Your actions indicate you are deliberately causing harm to these articles for no apparent reason. It is childish, unprofessional and wrong. You need to stop.

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Rehoboth Carpenter family - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?
User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. John Carpenter (bishop) John Carpenter, town clerk of London What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage? Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia.
What else can be done?
Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bots overdoing each other

The HBC AIV bots sometimes redundantly comment on the same report which just ends up overwriting their sig as in here and here. Can't they synchronize their actions? -- Mentifisto 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It was simply processing/submission time that caused that. Seems harmless.— neuro(talk) 14:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

IP users skirting around the rule

I've noticed a major pattern among IP vandalizers. They tend to vandalize until their final warning, then wait for 15-30 days for the heat to cool off, then vandalize once again. Perhaps some discussion on more stern rules is needed. I dunno, just a thought. These people are getting away with a lot of vandalism. --Teancum (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember that blocking is not meant to punish but to protect the project. If they stop for a while, then the warnings had an effect, in a way. Would be nicer if they all played by the rules, but they don't. Eventually they need to be blocked. Such is life. -- Alexf(talk) 18:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Re "blocking is not meant to punish but to protect the project", it's not giving much protection if the vandalism costs the vandals less than the protection costs us. The arithmetic of that leads to longer, earlier blocks. --Philcha (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What would the difference be between blocking for 14 days after the 3rd-4th vandal edit, or the IP not vandalizing for 14 days after a final warning on the 3rd-4th edit? In both cases no vandalism is coming from the IP for the same amount of time.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Lets not kid ourselves as IMO a good portion of blocks are as punishment and not to protect the project. BigDuncTalk 19:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It only makes sense to block in that case if it appears to be the same vandal every time. I've blocked IPs that commit the same acts of vandalism sparsely for several months with no good edits. But sometimes, when an IP goes inactive for a month, then comes back with renewed vandalism, it's because the IP rotated to a new editor, and not because the same vandal came back. It's part of Wikipedia's nature that there will always be a stream of newbies that need to be educated, but we shouldn't let that erode our patience when we can still afford some. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's the same pattern of vandalism, it's clear that its the same user, in which case it's unnecessary to give warnings for warnings' sake - they are gaming the system and can be blocked straight off. It's not going to affect other users, as it's clearly assigned to one address. – Toon(talk) 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and a bigger related problem is caused by vandals on dynamic IPs. For a recent example (from Economy car), an editor used multiple IPs (all 85.119.112.nnn) for persistent insertion of POV, replacement of specific wikilinks with vague ones, and other vandalism. First diff, second diff, third diff, first warning. Fourth diff, second warning. Fifth diff, final warning. Sixth diff with abusive edit summary, seventh diff with no edit summary, eighth diff. And this isn't an exhaustive list of the diffs.
When the user was reported on AIV, with a detailed description of the multiple-IP problem, an admin looked only at the contrib history of one of the IPs and declined to act, saying there wasn't enough recent vandalism to justify any action. I explained the situation to the admin, who still didn't understand; he blocked one of the IPs. This was, of course, quite ineffective. After the vandal repeated his disruption, I explained the situation again to the admin, who semi-protected the article for a month. Which stops the vandalism temporarily on this one article, but leaves this IP vandal free to disrupt others.
IP editors and registered editors alike make good and bad contributions to the project. Some IP-only editors resist registration in the mistaken belief it will effectively exempt them from the expectation of coöperative, consensus-based editing, or that it will shield them from the community's mechanisms for dealing with willfully disruptive editors. Neither is the case, but this kind of behaviour from IP vandals greatly increases the workload on those of us who have to clean up the messes. What's the solution? I'm not sure. But surely there has to be a better way of dealing with it than the way we presently are(n't). —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It is important to distinguish between an IP used exclusively over time by a single, repeat vandal (obvious block) and an IP shared by many users, some of whom unfortunately turn out to be vandals. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly; if by the pattern of edits it's obvious it's the same person (i.e., they repeatedly insert the same nonsense or attack the same articles over a series of days or weeks), then the clear route to take is a long-term block. If the vandalism "style" changes with every reappearance, then it's reasonably safe to assume that the IP is being used by multiple people. In the first case, a block is definitely warranted, but AIV is generally not the place to go (since it's for simple, ongoing vandalism)—WP:AN/I is for more complex cases. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose a good example of my case here is 165.166.57.70 (talk). Vandalism, warning, wait. Vandalism, warning, wait. Consistently over two years, and yet this user skirted past a block because there was not enough recent activity. If it's a private IP, the user will learn, if it's a shared IP such as a school this sort of vandalism needs to be brought to the school's attention, and can only do so via a block of ~2 weeks or greater. I mean, come on. It's not very motivating to contributors such as myself when vandals like this can skate around the rules. --Teancum (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

When reviewing ip's I note if they are active in a particular subject, and if they are returning to the same subject over a period I assume that they are the same person and often action what may appear to be quite a harsh sanction - in order that they are still blocked when they return to continue their disruption. The exception is if an ip geolocates to an area that is being vandalised - I deem it entirely possible that an ip that resolves to, for example, Korea will edit Korea related articles and that separate incidents of vandalism may indeed be different people - further review of the type of vandalism may then determine the likelihood of it being the same person. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I've had a look at the contributions of 165.166.57.70 (from example given by Teancum), and I agree that this user has been gaming the system. This user is now blocked for 3 months. Stephen! Coming... 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs vs Usernames

Hi guys, I've noticed that we've got a 'user reported' heading, and that's it. Maybe to make the administrators' jobs easier we could create sub-headings 'IP addresses' and 'Registered users'? Just a thought! JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We do have a notice reading "Anonymous users(IP addresses)" but it isn't formatted in any way. Good idea though, I'll boldify(sic) it. just a little insignificant 19:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The original idea throws a hurdle in front of newer users reporting their first vandal on a page that many users already find daunting. Also, what problem would this be solving? As an admin working on AIV, whilst more rigorous standards of warnings and time passing have to apply to IPs than registered users, the basic pattern of edit/revert/warn x3 isn't that much different, so no mental gear change is required when moving from one type of user to another. I'm not trying to be offensivefor once but this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, this would be far to much trouble for not enough gain. It's pretty easy to see whether it's an IP or a user. Sub-headings unnecessarily complicate matters. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Template for warning vandals who've triggered the abuse filter

I've created a template for warning vandals who've triggered the abuse filter called {{uw-attempt}}. PhilKnight (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be helpful. It appears as if users are currently being blocked without warning after having tripped an abuse filter. Thanks. --NERIC-Security (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That seems a bit redundant as the majority of the filters already provide the user with a warning, so giving them an extra set is probably not needed. That said, I can't think of any reason not to have them. Tiptoety talk 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
User :Mr.Z-bot doesn't leave warnings on user pages--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll be redundant and repeat Tiptoety's note that warnings on user pages would be redundant. Mr. Z-bot is reporting users/IPs who have tripped the abuse filter. In so doing, the abuse filter has already given them plenty of warnings. Read up on WP:ABFIL for more explanation. Wknight94 talk 03:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the abuse filter picking up

Mr.Z-man picked [this up. I probably would have reverted the first change and advised the editor that using time specific references (this year, next year) was not appropriate. Instead, the user hits the filter five times, may or may not realise what they are doing wrong (because the bot gives no warnings) and the IP is blocked for 14 days. What am I missing here?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this is a characteristic edit of a known vandal. Can't tell for sure, because filter 177 isn't visible to us mere mortals, but reading between the lines of the IP's block log, that would be my guess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Fairy snuff. So it's not so much what they are adding as who they are. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It's block evasion by yet another sock of long-blocked user, User:Television Radio. You reverted one edit but he's done hundreds (at least) of similar edits over and over for months (that I know of). So your warning would have been a waste of time. Wknight94 talk 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I haven't really got my head around this bot yet, so I couldn't figure out what it could see.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sublime comic relief - the Tao of vandalism

Sometimes a vandal inadvertently reveals their true nature. ;-) Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is it a personal attack if you ask a user what do we disagree upon and get no answer,is it considerd vandilism--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not a personal attack, maybe a breach of Wikietiquette. But first I'd check to see if the user was inactive or if they blatantly refused to answer the question. Be sure to give them a sufficient amount of time to respond. just a little insignificant 02:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Could someone advise on the correct course of action on the article Gaelcholáiste Reachrann? There seems to be persistent vandalism going back to March 2009 involving the insertion of "due to claims of abuse" or "claims of sexual abuse" using different IPs that geolocate to Dublin, as well as User talk:SkynetBot2201 (SkynetBot is already blocked). What is supposed to be done in a case like this? Where should it be reported? Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protection may be sutible in this case. If all the IPs are the same, then a range block could be put in place. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, I wasn't sure about protection because while the vandal is persistently reinserting the vandalism, I was under the impression that the level of vandalism would have to be fairly high for protection - in this case it's not like it's doing it every day. Maybe a rangeblock as I suspect it's the same person. How should that be requested? Tameamseo (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You could post at the admins' noticboard, or ask an admin or (preferably) a checkuser. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll do that. Many thanks for the advice. Tameamseo (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Should every vandalism be banned?

I'm wondering if every vandalism should get a ban when discovered, initially of say 15 minutes.

Then subsequent ones would quadruple, so on a second offense an hour suspension, 4 hours, 16 hours etc. etc. And if they made 3 edits in a row, the first ban would be 4 hours.

The only thing that would cause this to decrease should be positive edits that are kept; those would halve the vandalism tarif.

The point is that it's not a punishment, it's a way of progressively identifying which IP/accounts are actually making, on average, positive contributions, and disabling any that aren't. A lot of anonymous IPs have never made any positive contributions, but only vandalism. I tend to think that they should be banned; the case where we have a lot of vandalism and then it becomes all positive contributions, that seems rare.

Occasionally, you'll get an edit that is borderline. Those shouldn't be banned, but should still count towards the multiplier if there is a later vandalism. Doing that will help avoid people doing brinksmanship.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I sort of understand the reason you'd want to do this, but I think it's probably a bad idea for several reasons.
  • I think 4 levels of warning is too many, and could easily live with 3 or even 2 warnings before blocking, but zero warnings goes way too far. Quite a few people stop vandalizing after one warning; no sense blocking them, even for 15 minutes.
  • I don't think you want to encourage people to report IP addresses here after 1 vandal edit. If you think it sometimes gets swamped now, wait until all the one-off vandals clog up the board.
  • People often seem to have a hard time differentiating between test edits and vandalism. I don't think you want to risk blocking someone for test edits with no warning.
  • WP:CREEP.
  • A 15 minute block is only useful to stop current fast and furious vandalism anyway; they may not even notice they're blocked. Short blocks for stale vandalism are no more useful than putting a note on the IP's talk page (which, unlike blocking, everyone can do).
Now, I do agree we should be a lot more proactive about identifying, and {{schoolblock}}ing long term, IP addresses where there is almost nothing but vandalism, even if it comes a couple of edits per week, and never gets 3-4 warnings on the same day. But that's significantly different from the rest of your proposal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Picking up on the "4 levels ... is too many" point, and the "Quite a few people stop..." point:
I'll usually just revert the first instance of vandalism I see (assuming the editor's contribs don't include other instances of vandalism, past or present). If they vandalise again I'll then go straight to a level 2 warning. This saves my time because many editors aren't vandals per se, they're simply "testing" editing and won't edit again once they know that yes, they really can edit Wikipedia: warning them would be a waste of my time and might scare off a potentially useful future editor.
That said, I'll keep their contribs page open in a tab, and warn them (level 2 or higher) if they vandalise again.
I use discretion with warnings, too, and I imagine blocking admins use similar discretion - if a vandal starts with a racist comment I'll start with an immediate warning, probably of level 2 or 3.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the perspective of an admin who processes block requests at AIV almost every day. Wikipedia's official WP:BLOCK policy states that "everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes ... before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines." Keeping that in mind, when I block a normal† run-of-the-mill anonymous vandal, the duration of that block is directly proportional to the amount of effort the Wikipedia community has put into educating the IP in question. If the vandal ignored four escalating levels of vandalism, I generally block for 31 hours. If the vandal got three levels of warnings, I often block for 24 hours. However if the IP only received two warnings, I either decline with a {{AIV|ns}} "insufficiently warned" or if I do block, it is almost always for something under 12 hours. †Note that I typically give BLP, defamation, and hate-speech vandals a 24 - 55 hour block after ignoring just a single level-four or 4im warning. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Template:uw-test1 is there for a reason. Continually fighting vandalism, and witnessing the antics of persistent vandals who are gaming with the system (who, you've to admit, constitute only a minority of vandals out there), has the unfortunate side-effect of provoking you to label all IP edits as guilty-until-proven-innocent and retaliating with a heavy hand, which is not in line with WP:Assume good faith. I have been guilty of this myself. It helps to take a deep breath, cool down, and try to educate the editors instead. Often, a perceived vandal is really just making test edits because they don't really understand how the system works yet: changing a number here (which could be construed as subtle vandalism, if you're assuming bad faith), adding random characters there (which could be construed as malicious vandalism), etc.. Just because the last proven persistent vandal was doing the same thing doesn't mean the next IP has the same malicious intentions.—Tetracube (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. This is why it is important to select at WP:RfA admins who can be expected to know what they are doing. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
OTOH, if you really assume good faith, you should assume that the person editing is not a moron. Therefore, if they edit an article, insert "hi" somewhere, hit the Save button, and then see that the "hi" did indeed go into the article, then they should pretty much "get it" at that point. If they do it again somewhere else, maybe they're proving that every article can be edited. Okay, now they got that. If they edit twelve articles inserting various pieces of random text where they clearly don't belong, they are either a moron or a blatant vandal. If somewhere in there, you'd like to issue a warning to let them know we are watching and that there is a sandbox - and those are valid pieces of information to teach them - that is good. After that, if they persist, I whack 'em. The full set of four templated warnings before blocking is an antiquated approach in my view. Wknight94 talk 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Two issues: 1. text is often reverted without the user in question being warned systematically. This prevents us from having a more comprehensive view of the overall actions of the user. 2. I have seen pages where the user makes frequent changes, spread out over many months (often with blocks). Because they don't get 4 warnings in a calendar month (example 2 warnings in late June and 2 warnings in early July), they are sometimes overlooked. If we were more vigorous about warnings, without being too BITEy, we could better see a history of problematic editing. I feel that it is the pattern of behaviour which is important. Comes down to judgement calls by our admins. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree w AlexandrDmitri. The calendar-month system of monitoring begs to be gamed, e.g. 3 acts of vandalism on the last day of 1 month and 3 on the first of the next. The slate should not be wiped clean at the end of a calendar month, nor of an elapsed month - I suggest previous vandalism should be taken into account for at least 3 months. The warning templates are uselssly bland, in fact the combination of social worker and bureaucrat in their phrasing is likely to provoke vandals - I use much simpler, more direct phrasing. Fianlly, as AlexandrDmitri says, "it is the pattern of behaviour which is important" - I generally look at a vandal's contribs when delivering a warning, and sometimes refer them to AIV if mine is the first visible warning but I see other recent vandalism. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I occasionally look at AIV and have noticed a disparity between the way that admins deal with reported vandals (I've occasionally reported them myself). Sometimes the admin follows the spirit of the "law", other times the letter (i.e. user has not yet had 4 warnings, despite the fact that the only contribs are insertion of vulgar remarks blanking out sections, and IMHO the user is only here to cause trouble). I realise that they should not be "block-happy", but sometimes we give the vandals yet another (final) opportunity to disrupt, which may or may not go unnoticed. Comes down to judgement and I appreciate the efforts of admins who make difficult calls. We all have our own views on what should or should not be tolerated and we are all human after all. It's just so frustrating to see vandals gaming (in my opinion) the system .AlexandrDmitri (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

template spammer

This is an annoying user,but is this vandalism?

A sample of this persons edits over the last year or so:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveler100 (talk • contribs)

I too find this guy's contributions annoying, and have been reverting them on sight for a year or more. Astronaut (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing preventing contributions from this address but would it be possible to force login under a name for this IP range (88.105. . .) so that wikipedians can easy locate and advise the person on how to make better contributions?Traveler100 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

An autoblock on 88.105.0.0/16 would block 65536 IP addresses which would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut when you take into account the relatively small number of minorly troublesome edits. Even taking the lowest and highest IPs from that selection gives you 24378 which is still a huge number. Unless the editor becomes significantly more prolific or damaging its just has way too much potential for collateral damage IMHO. Mfield (Oi!) 07:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe an abuse filter could be programmed to watch that range for template additions though. Mfield (Oi!) 07:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Annoying though it is, I agree that a rangeblock is just too drastic and potentially affects way too many legitimate editors. If it helps create an abuse filter, the type of behavoir I've seen from this guy is:
He also has a liking for articles somewhat related to sexual matters. Astronaut (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have filed an abuse filter request to see what the experts on the abuse filter think. Mfield (Oi!) 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Programmed blocks for repeat vandals

I just had the "pleasure" of examining every single contribution from User:65.213.246.201. I did this after discovering that one of his "contributions" from eight months ago was vandalism that had gone unnoticed until today. (He deleted about a paragraph, so the vandalism was not obvious.) When I looked at his talk page, there were dozens of warnings, including 5 "last" warnings. The result of all these warnings was a single block for 31 hours, after which there were 20 more instances of vandalism.

With one instance of vandalism undetected for eight months, I wondered if any other vandalism had gone undetected. That's why I looked through all his other contributions. Virtually every contribution had been reverted. I found one likely case of vandalism that had not been reverted and one valid edit of a minor typo. Clearly, this user is harmful to the project, but practically no action had been taken. And now that school is out, I expect no action until after a few more dozen cases of vandalism in the Fall.

What I'd like to suggest is a programmatic way to quickly identify vandals like this and automatically block them or at last bring them to the attention of AIV. Hook into the Undo button and the various tools that are used for reverting vandalism. Every time an edit is undone, make an entry in the user's log. When the percentage of Undos to total edits is greater than 50% (or even 20%) that user is very likely a vandal. All of us have been reverted now and then but I doubt that my reverts are as much as 1%. Any editor that is reverted as much as 10% of the time needs some kind of attention. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kinda like locking the bank and letting the robbers have their hostages. While most vandalism comes from IPs, there remain more good edits than bad from IPs. What you're proposing would not be too dissimilar to the Internet Watch Foundation's proxying scheme in the Virgin Killer kerfluffle and would be ineffective for many IP vandals anyway, who can just turn TOR off or reboot their router. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's not practical unfortunately. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You are forgetting that some persistant and lazy vandals simply keep hitting the undo button on your reversions of their vandalism, thus racking up your reversion count. As a newbie to WP who has been steadfastly cracking down on vandals, I am sure my reversion count is pretty high on that regard alone. Most vandals (like most criminals) seem either lazy or compulsive, and should be easy to catch and deter in either regard. Good idea, though. Jaybird vt (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It certainly wouldn't be good to block users because 50% of their edits are reverted. Although ClueBot reports users once they vandalise after a final warning. I think in general we keep things pretty much under control, even with your example IP address we did :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I agree with Kingpin here. In many cases, the users such as the one raised in the original post aren't single users at all - they're schools, or other collections of various immature users. They sometimes do warrant long-term blocks (see {{schoolblock}}) but in the case of IPs that only rack up a couple of vandalisms a month at most, it's simply not that productive to block all contributions, and we do a reasonable job of handling them when spikes of vandalism do occur. IPs that vandalise over a long period, but only sparsely, are often better off monitored rather than blocked. ~ mazca talk 11:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about when to report an IP user.

I undid an edit by user:203.196.206.222 but when I went to add the warning to his (or her) talk page, I found he'd been getting warnings almost monthly for the past year and a half. There was a final warning in early June which was followed by another warning a few weeks later. For the edit I undid I was going to give a level 1 warning but now I'm not sure if that is appropriate. He has added an edit since I undid the last one. I haven't undone it but again it looks pretty much like newbie unintentional vandalism. Should a user like this be reported? How recent should previous warnings be before a user is reported? --Sophitessa (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For IP vandalism - unless the past warnings/edits are very recent, I start over with level 1. Imagine a library computer, and different users coming and going several times an hour. Of course, there's exceptions - if you see the same article being vandalized over a long period of time, or other patterns that indicate a sole user, then you should skip the level 1 and perhaps report them right away, or at least give them a last (only) warning. Follow your instincts, try to be reasonable, and I'm sure you'll be fine. Tan | 39 14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It's also worth looking at the contributions as a whole - the example that Tan gives of a library computer often results in a varied mixture of vandalism and constructive edits from what are clearly a whole variety of users - these IP addresses are only worth blocking for short periods when the vandalism is intense, and it's usually worth starting from a low-level warning. On the other hand, you sometimes get IP addresses (often belonging to high schools, or similar) that produce pretty much nothing beyond a low-intensity stream of nonsense and vandalism from bored students. If you think you've run across one of the latter, it can be worth reporting so that we can {{schoolblock}} it for a longer period. Tan is exactly right in saying follow your instincts and be reasonable - every editor and every IP address is different, and there isn't a hard rule that fits every situation. Try and decide whether you're dealing with one dedicated vandal or a variety of different people. ~ mazca talk 14:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this case: The page Barisal City has been repeatedly vandalized by several different IPs with the same sex ad for the last several months. In a case like this should I just issue warnings and maybe request protection for the page? Or should I go ahead and request a block, even though it's hard to tell how many warnings were issued? The IPs appear to belong to an ISP in Bangladesh. --Sophitessa (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A useful link is http://whois.domaintools.com/ (works for all IP addresses worldwide) - you can enter the IP address and see where it comes from - if it's from, say, a university or school it may be more obvious. Note the pattern of vandalism - not all ISPs use dynamic addressing - certainly quite a few here in UK are now using static addressing.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an area that I am quite confused about also. It seems that there are multiple places to make reports, but only if other reports have been made, and then, only if certain warnings have been left, but you can only leave the warning if other... the list goes on. I have an issue with an ip that appears to be static and the individual has been leaving libelous edits in an article since September 2008, on the same two pages, with the same edits over and over and over..., despite many warnings both in the comments in the articles and on the discussion pages of those articles. Only recently have I started posting warnings on the IP's talk page and attempted to report them to IP vandals (I think... that's where it starts getting confusing...) However when I reported it, someone posted on my talk page, that it wasn't vandalism. It seems to get very confusing as to what is and what isn't vandalism and it also seems to be fairly arbitrary. One person's vandalism is another person's spam, is another person's non-sourced edit???? Is there one page that describes it all or one place to initiate a report rather than 4 different places??? Or should we just succumb to the shadows and not bother since it's so difficult to file an "appropriate" report? (I'm not trying to sound confrontational. I'm just slightly frustrated and confused. I apologize if I sound otherwise or if I've upset someone.) Kjnelan (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Kjnelan, it sounds like page protection might be the best bet for a scenario like that. Tan | 39 16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, use of WP:TW will help in reverting the edit, selecting the appropriate warning template (although - you will have to decide on level 1-4 depending on previous warnings), and also assist with reporting a user to WP:AIV and requesting page protectionWP:RFPP.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

AIV notation templates dropdown

The "AIV notation templates" dropdown that appears (on clicking the "show" link) on editing this page has a couple of spurious entries - {{AIV|wait/wt}} and {{AIV|merge/me}}. The "wait" and "merge" options seem not to exist in {{AIV}}, or its documentation. Are they there in the AIV notation templates dropdown for a reason? Tonywalton Talk 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since they don't appear to do anything I've commented them out on the editnotice. Tonywalton Talk 14:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Unless someone inserted them after, I must have mistakenly put them in when I was making the editnotice in the first place. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

This user is vandalising whatever edits that I made, from posts on talk pages to improvements to articles, in the name that I am a sockpuppt. His favourite today is to undo whatever I edited in the article Typhoon Morakot (2009). Here are some of the diffs. [2] [3] [4] [5] (I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know whether this is the appropriate venue to report. I got here by searching on Google with site:wikipedia.org. Please advise if here's the wrong post. Thanks.) Quarrian (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way User:Jason Rees appears to be doing something similar. [6] [7] Quarrian (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the wrong place. But: your edits seem strange, and the edits of the others seem less strange. And your behaviour seems strange, whilst the behaviour of others seems less strange. All in all, if you're not a sockpuppet, you've somehow managed to act exactly like one, and nothing like a new editor at all. Hmmm, how odd. ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser (not by me) confirms sockpuppetry. See editor's userpage for link. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm completely shocked. I'm also shocked beyond belief that bears defecate in the woods and that the pope has been known to go to mass. Seriously, cheers Anthony! ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 21:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Status of reports

Do people who ask for help get any notice or feedback? I checked my report about vandalism to University of Bridgeport and only found that it had been deleted. Is this normal? If not, what is the normal procedure?

If it's normal to deleted a report as soon as it's read, then how can I find out what action was taken? Or find out that an admin decided no action was needed, and why. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This revision of the page shows a response from Wknight94. It may well have been removed from the report after that by a passer-by who saw it had been dealt with. If it had been reported by username(s), then the entry would have been removed by the Bot that maintains this page after people are blocked. Generally, the only way you can see what happened is to review the history of the AIV page, or check each user manually to see if they have been blocked. Hope this helps, Ed. :) – B.hotep •talk• 16:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) If a user is blocked, then the bots remove it straight away. If an admin doesn't block, they will comment, and the itme will stay up for a little while before it gets removed by an admin (otherwise the page gets backlogged very quickly). The people concerned were blocked. Because your report wasn't filed using the recommended template, the bot didn't remove it, so I removed it manually. The way to see what happened is to check the page history (tab is at the top of the page). To save you searching through, here is what the admin wrote [8]. Stephen! Coming... 16:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I have a lot to learn. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - we all have to start somewhere! Thanks for your work on vandal hunting. Stephen! Coming... 16:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, I noticed your comment about it being your first ever WP:AIV report (after your being here almost eight years, that's fascinating!) so I left a note that I hoped you would read in time. But by-in-large, yes, the traffic through this page is heavy enough that reports simply disappear into history when they are acted upon. Wknight94 talk 16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I didn't mean to say it was my first vandalism report; rather, my first use of this page as currently set up. Actually, if we go way back I was the first administrator to "be bold" and block signed-in users for vandalism and other violations; but I forget where I started the page for that. Anyway, even Jimbo used the page, and eventually the practice caught on and became institutionalized. If I ever become an admin again, I'll have to bone up on the current procedures and policies. Cheers! --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Urgent help needed

User:VirtualSteve, whom has really been helping me with an anon vandal, and protected several pages connected with AEK Athens FC soccer club, which seem to be this "user"'s field of choice, told me to report this here.

After a couple of months, as four pages - the only ones i have followed thoroughly - were protected against his shenanigans, he has returned, inserting the same: in Sebastián Saja (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sebasti%C3%A1n_Saja&diff=308288148&oldid=306146258, he AGAIN altered his birthyear when all sites say another thing), Geraldo Alves (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geraldo_Alves&diff=308911630&oldid=306145928; this was accompanied by the recurrent lie that this player played at the Olympics), and Juan Francisco García (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Francisco_Garc%C3%ADa&diff=307897360&oldid=307160540, he also altered birthyear for this player, a novelty).

Especially from browsing at the latter's edit history, you can see that this "person" "contributes" using an almost neverending supply of anon IP. Thus, we can't be bothered to try and communicate with them.

Urgent action needed i reckon. Attentively, VASCO, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that this has gone unnoticed for so long; next time, the actual project page may be better. Anyway, after some sniffing, I've found that this IP range, 92.0.0.0/13, is used by about half a million people in Manchester, United Kingdom. Blocking this is therefore quite unfeasible, especially due to the lack of significant vandalism. Sorry that there's not much we can do! If vandalism gets worse, consider reporting affected pages to Requests for page protection. Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection of this page.

Given that some experienced vandals remove reports of themselves from this page, would it be worth semi-protecting, WP:AIV and creating e.g WP:AIV-non-autoconfirmed-submissions. (or do admins check the history of this page.) Martin451 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The extra bureaucracy would not be worth it. Users removing themselves from AIV is almost always noticed, and in most cases it's one of the fastest ways to get blocked :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I check the history every time there's a report I'm dealing with, just in case some IP knows how to duplicate Jimbo's signature or the like. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stale report-clearing

Anyone see any merit in adding a sentence or two about clearing stale reports from AIV? I've run across a few herds recently; the only problem is that they activate the backlog notice. No big deal, of course; I'm just thinking of adding a line asking people to remove a report if it has been dealt with by an administrator, is in the same state as it was when dealt with, and is >30 minutes old. Thoughts? Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No big deal; if the backlog notice gets activated, one of dozens of admins that regularly do it will clear out all of the stale and tagged reports. No need to make this explicit. I do it all the time, and lots of others do as well. The backlog system works fine in this respect, and the extra notice won't really change anything as far as this problem goes. --Jayron32 19:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was worth leaving the notice for a while so that the reporter can easily see the response. It is a pain to trawl the AIV history. But half an hour should be enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
As a user; what are reasonable expectations. I had a report cleared with no administrator oversight within the history, as a stale report. Should items have an admin response before being cleared or not? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes AIV moves at a pretty brisk pace and admins are unable to make a notation as to why we have declined a request. If there are already declined items in the list causing the page to appear to have a backlog (when it does not), it is not unusual for an admin to just remove declined reports. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-bot

I had some concerns with the a posting by Mr.Z-bot that it does not meet the criteria

  • Your report must follow these three points:
  • 1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.
  • 2. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.
  • 3. Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent.

for posting here, I brought it up at User_talk:Mr.Z-man#Vandal.3F, where the consensus seems to be that the report was appropriate and if the criteria here don't support the post made by Mr.Z-bot then the criteria here should be changed [9]. Does anyone have thoughts on changing the criteria? Jeepday (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Z-bot was reporting an active banned vandal who was trying to deface a page. The report satisfied all the conditions, if you consider the user and not just their individual sockpuppets, and define recent as their last sockpuppet.[10] Such reports are welcome anytime, but only in obvious cases and when there is some obvious way for admins who are not familiar with the vandal to check the previous history of abuse, warnings, and blocks. This is made easier with the abuse filter; such vandals would be blocked on sight by any admin already familiar with the vandalism. The instructions are the way they are because unlike the bot most people (especially those who would read the instructions) do not correctly recognise when or how to report users without warning. Those who do will know that they should report anyway, and that the instructions will agree with them. Maybe something about this could go in WP:GAIV, but I think such a change in the headline instructions is more likely to result in bad reports. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the bot account is still reporting users that arent actually committing vandalism as in the posting of Peter on Blocks. This user proceeded to sign his name after sinebot had done so for hime (about 2 mins after) and tripped one of the filters and was reported. Ive notified the creator of this bot to have a looksee. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Spoke to creator he cleared things up for me, so you can disregard the previous posting of mine, thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving user pages

This vandal: Cowboy! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went on a spree today. One of the last things he did before he was blocked was to move some people's user pages. Shouldn't user pages be protected by default from moving unless it's the user him/herself or an administrator? I can see no justification for allowing one editor to move another's page. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User pages aren't move protected by default. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 11:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you take this to the village pump. This page isn't for general discussion of vandalism on Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 10:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WikiLubber

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • This user seems to act like an owner of the article Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. He revert edits that doesn't please him. Although references are present, he would remove the good-faith edit and describe it as "not important". This user also seem to be a sockpuppet of a blocked user. He has violated the Three Revert Rule, although warned in his page, he removed it and still continued to revert. Please take immediate action on this matter. --Beckerich (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems he finally stopped it. However, he did violate the Three Revert Rule. --Beckerich (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Acually, you did before he did. And you made no attempt to discuss the edit, you only warned the user, witch is not discussion.Abce2|TalkSign 23:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
ACTUALLY, I was the IP address who inserted the edit WHICH he reverted first. --79.72.207.232 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But you didn't keep reverting, so you haven't broken the 3rr rule.Abce2|TalkSign 23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, I AM BECKERICH!--79.72.207.232 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Intiendes? --Beckerich (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No need to get excited. No reason to switch to your IP, either. Abce2|TalkSign 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to make a point. Accusing me doesn't help either. --Beckerich (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing you of anything. Just saying what happened. Abce2|TalkSign 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"you did before he did" - if thats not an accusation, I dont know what that is. are yo uan admin? --Beckerich (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Explain how that is an accusation. Abce2|TalkSign 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You accused me that I began the edit war, which clearly I didnt. Enough? If you're not an admin who would take action on this matter. Can you please stop replying now, you're wasting my time. Plus, I said it was finished. Now scrat please. --Beckerich (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying you reverted three times first. I didn't say you begun it. And Wikipedia also has rules of chivalry. Abce2|TalkSign 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Sshhh doogie, stay quiet. I said I have something else to do, now this discussion has already been resolved. I'm gonna go, and you won't reply anymore, understand? So everybody's happy okay?--Beckerich (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a dog you can tell what to do. Abce2|TalkSign 23:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But you sure do want a lot of attention. Now go somewhere else. Show's over, problem's gone. Move along. --Beckerich (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Just quit telling me what to do. Abce2|TalkSign 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
G-O spells GO. Un-der-stand?--Beckerich (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Listen, I'm getting tired of you thinking you can tell me what to do. Abce2|TalkSign 23:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Reply something to me. --Beckerich (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
...enough. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Abce2|TalkSign 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Didn't the Admin say enough?! Now go! Gosh!--Beckerich (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war of the above issue

These two (User:WikiLubber, User:Peparazzi) aren't stopping. I suggest both of them to be blocked. --CocaCirca2009 (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARV should 'work' again.

I got some word that the ARV script was broken. Because it's in the tools of Voice Of All, it's apparently still in use by many folks, so I took a quick stab at it, and the basic functionality is restored. It now uses the edit API to post the reports, but you are probably still better off using Twinkle. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How does this happen?

See this diff. The moment after I added the notification, using Twinkle I came here to check on it. It wasn't here. So I checked the history, and somehow the moment after it was added it was "overwritten" by another one. How does this occur?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest talking to User:Gurch, who maintains WP:HUGGLE. At least, I think so; someone else might be doing it now. Either way, they'll know more. Sorry for the long response time, by the way! Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Sorry about that, I was searching for a report in the page history, and accidentally clicked the rollback button (it was right above the previous diff button, and the page loaded fully just as I clicked). Apologies there. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Report not acted upon by admins

Hmmm, after a few hours of being offline I came back and checked the Intervention Against Vandalism page and oddly enough I found that my report had been deleted with no action taken by a Wikipedia admin against the vandal, would someone please be kind enough to explain what happened. Thank you in advance. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 67.78.176.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), I don't see enough sufficient recent activity to warrant a block (Only a single edit this month), and I would think that's why your report was removed. Regards, decltype (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There have been non blatant vandalism reports lately, where facts have been claimed to be altered. However these reports cannot be easily confirmed. These kinds of vandals will be left around much longer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving question

When and how are AIV reports that don't lead to a block archived (i.e., removed from the main page once they have been otherwise addressed) ? Is there a rule of thumb or practice guideline for this ? Abecedare (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, once a report has been declined (whether it be for insufficient recent activity/not enough warnings/etc.), it'll stay up for a short period of time to give the reporter time to see what the problem was. I usually remove reports once they've been up for 20-30 minutes; what other admins do may be different though. As far as I know, there is no guideline that covers this. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
In my experience an admin who comments rather than blocks will leave up the report for another admin to look at - very rarely is there a definite decline. Another admin will check it up and remove the report if there is no reason for the account to be blocked in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I meant decline as explaining why the report is not actionable (i.e., with one of the templated messages), not specifically "Decline"-ing it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I was saying that when one admin declines to block and posts an AIV template it is generally considered a comment rather than an official decline - just really for the general readership. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Turnaround time!

Just a kudos to any and all admins who respond so quickly to vandalism reports. I am amazed at how fast this happens. Wow. Ccrashh (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

whatever happened to warning vandals?

RFA candidates take a lot of flack anymore if they seem over-eager to use the block button, and yet users are being reported and blocked here when their entire editing history consists of between one and three instances of childish vandalism. I'm sure there is some cute rationalization for this, since if you block an account with two vandal edits and nothing else you can still say it was a "vandalism only account" but aren't we supposed to tell users who report such cases that the user hasn't been sufficiently warned? Aren't we supposed to give them at least one chance to see the error of their ways before indef hardblocking them? I know that requires a little more thought than instablocking some kid for putting the word "penis" in one article or whatever, but isn't that why we have admins and don't allow non-admins to block other users? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. Yes. Tan | 39 03:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No blanket "yes" from me. If someone creates a new account and writes something that I am unwilling to even write here as an example over and over and over with their first edit, I think it's pretty clear where that is going. Waiting for four more edits is just forcing people to revert four more edits and reducing people's view of the encyclopedia. Wknight94 talk 03:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with that. I was more or less being literal with my answers. I completely agree that this depends on a multitude of variables. The salient question here is, is this a problem? Are we losing potential editors who Beeblebrox thinks would become productive given one more template warning? Can we have an example of the problem, and why you think they were blocked too quickly? Tan | 39 04:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This sprung out of a conversation I was having with our newest admin at User talk:Tcncv#sorry to be the first one. He might a slightly hasty block and in the course of our discussion, he mentioned that the block log seemed to contradict what I was saying. I looked, and lo and behold found several blocks like the one issued to User:Dhughes113. He has exactly two edits to Wikipedia, one adding the word "penis" to an article and the other the creation of a completely stupid article about himself. Bam, indef hardblock, no warning whatsoever. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Warnings are good, but as noted, it's a case-by-case situation. Some admins will be a little quicker to bring the hammer down than others. As a regular editor who does not hesitate to report vandals to AIV, I've observed that Tanthalas and Wknight94 are both fair and practical in their approach to blocking. Keep in mind that someone who's indef'd has the right to appeal, and can be reinstated if he presents a sincere case. That happens now and then. I ran into one the other day that I had reported for legal threats and who was persuaded to retract those threats and was unblocked. That's kind of a rare case. Most of them seem to be drive-bys who move onto something else once they've had their ball taken away from them here. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Bugs. These users always have the right to appeal - if they are the 0.01% who say, "damn, I didn't realize y'all were serious, this looks fun - can I try being a productive editor?", by all means we'd unblock (with a close eye, of course!) But, over the year(s), you start to realize that yet another warning - or sometimes, any warning at all - is completely useless. This isn't a judicial system; this is a meritocracy. Most of the time warnings are good, and necessary - but it's a judgment call. If you have a problem with a specific block, I suggest taking it up with the blocking admin. That might work better than saying things like "cute rationalization" and "instablocking" and other slightly sarcastic and confrontational things to no one in particular. Tan | 39 04:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you got me there, perhaps I was a bit harsh in my characterization, (except for "instablock" since that is an accurate description) and I frankly agree that most of the time it does little good to warn, but aren't we bound by policy? I'm as willing as the next guy to IAR if the situation warrants it, but not again and again, to the point where it seems like the rule rather than the exception. And what about the hardblocking? Since a lot of these users are drive-by vandals, a lot of them are probably using shared computers or ips from internet cafes, dorms, schools, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm don't think we should be soft on vandals, but I do think hardblocks should be carefully considered before being made. I was frankly trying to avoid "picking a fight" with any particular user and deliberately made my initial remarks more general as I think this is more of a trend than an isolated incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not an admin, but I often use AIV to report accounts that appear to be only vandalism or other rules violations. If it looks like a one-time drive-by, I'll just revert and then watch him for a little while. Unless the vandalism is significantly gross, I often don't issue a warning the first time, on the theory that it just encourages them. If he does it again, I'll post a warning. If he continues doing it despite warnings (and often there are other editors posting warnings also), then I'll send him to AIV and let an admin use his best judgment. He might decide against blocking if there are no vandalistic edits since the warning, especially for a shared IP address. If there is no block, you just have to keep an eye on the user and see if he strikes again. Then they'll probably block him once you report him. The admin might also block him with fewer warnings when it's clear that the guy is igoring the warnings. One thing I've observed is that the admins are a lot stricter about the 4-warning guideline where IP's are concerned, due to the possibility that it's shared, and you don't want to punish an innocent user. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Part of this too is probably just the result of seeing "the other side of the coin" fairly recently. When I engaged in "user level" as opposed to "admin level" vandal fighting, I was always careful to follow the program, to ramp up the warnings as vandalism progressed and not report until they had made it abundantly clear they had no intention of heeding the warnings. Sometimes, once they get the "final warning" they realize every edit they have made has already been undone and they really will be blocked if they keep it up, and poof, they go away, without needing to be reported and blocked. And yet now, I see that this diligence and adherence to policy was apparently not needed, that you could get someone blocked for two edits, without ever saying a word to them about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It's case-by-case. There's generally no harm in following the system. Sometimes, as you see, he'll stop after sufficient warning. There's even a slim chance (very slim) that he'll decide to become productive. But at least it will clear that he knows we mean business or at least that he's being watched. The sense of urgency can figure into it. Some of these guys just go nuts and vandalize a whole string of things, and then you report them and they can be blocked with little or no warning. I would call that a reasonable application of WP:IAR. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
To me, it's as simple as asking, "are they going to continue vandalizing?" If an IP has done seven vandal edits in five minutes and then nothing in two hours, the answer is probably "no" - it could be a public terminal like you said. If an account does three edits, all things that no one in their right mind would consider productive, then the answer is "yes". If you also figure that they'll just create another account and continue vandalizing, then you need to do a hard-block. Personally, I always hard-block accounts. The autoblock only lasts 24 hours, there is a clear explanation for the autoblock including the vandal account's name (with a link to the vandal contribs), and an explanation of how to appeal the autoblock. That's about the best we can do and I rarely see un-autoblock requests - at least not legitimate ones. Wknight94 talk 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think blocking a vandalism only account as such is a problem, even if it made only very few edits. If they want to start editing seriously they can still start with a new account. While no doubt occasionally someone who started with a bit of vandalism later becomes respectable, with the same account, I would think it much more likely that an editor who wants to become respectable also wants to do so with a clean start. That said, if I were an admin I would probably be a bit careful in the case of real name accounts or in the presence of other unusual circumstances. Hans Adler 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I'm not an AIV regular, but when I come to the board I generally decline cases that aren't properly warned. However, BLP vandalism is probably going to get a block from me. Just yesterday I blocked an editor with exactly one warning from ClueBot back in January. My rationale was that when you make 4 bad edits, get warned, break for 9 months and vandalize again, you aren't here to help. As best I can see, most admins are reasonable in the way they block for cases in which they are not involved, the problem comes when they have an interest in the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin so perhaps a little perspective from what I have seen for the short time I have been around may be useful. I have always thought that article vandals are not as bad as talk page vandals. For example, if a vandal were to make changes to a person's words on this talk page I expect the original writer would be unhappy about it. I have seen some subtle, and nasty, talk page edits that take a lot patience to look for and to undo also. Usually a simple "revert" or "undo" doesn't work since other people have already edited the page and there is an "edit conflict" warning. So it needs manual effort. For those two reasons (twisting others words and manual edits to fix) I feel that there should be a looser policy upon some vandals than on others. After one or two "nasty" edits I think an "instablock" is warranted, but the more childish (not nasty, just silly) vandals should be given more chance to redeem themselves before applying blocks. HumphreyW (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Question mark?

I am surprised by the comments in this thread, especially Wknight's:

If someone creates a new account and writes something that I am unwilling to even write here as an example over and over and over with their first edit, I think it's pretty clear where that is going. Waiting for four more edits is just forcing people to revert four more edits and reducing people's view of the encyclopedia.

I don't care what they write with their first edit, they deserve warnings and a chance to reform before being blocked. You never know when someone might decide to stop fooling around. WP:BLOCK, when explaining the criteria for blocking an editor for disruption, uses the word "persistently". One edit, nor two, is persistent, and we certainly should not be indefinitely blocking for two edits; all you'd have to do is change the word to "infinite" and we'd be Conservapedia. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not realistic. They're not blocked infinitely. They're blocked for a few hours. Ever notice how few vandalism-only accounts ever appeal their indefblock? It's because they know they are going to get blocked. If someone is so crazy that they don't know writing FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK will get them insta-blocked, then they shouldn't be editing here anyway. Maybe when you put in more time at WP:AIV and get yelled at by good editors for refusing their block requests, you'll realize that good editors making block requests are more valuable than the FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK people. Wknight94 talk 20:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I think they are all valuable. Sure, the 'good editors' are nice to have, but we're all going to leave eventually, right? And someone will have to replace us when we are gone; why not a reformed vandal? Someone writing FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK might simply be testing to see if they actually can do that; a warning before blocking would certainly be helpful in this case. You don't know who is on the other keyboard and what their intentions are (hardened vandal or innocent curiosity), so we shouldn't go and play whack-a-mole after someone's first two edits. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is a case-by-case situation, but I think only the very most extreme kinds of vandalism shouldn't at least get "this is your only warning." The larger point however, is that as administrators, we are supposed to follow policy, not make it up ourselves if we don't agree with it. I mean, look at the top of AIV, it says "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." Ignoring obvious statements in giant boxes at the top of pages is something we all have no problem blocking others for, so how is it so many feel at comfortable doing it themselves? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A reformed vandal can replace us when we're gone... with a new account. If writing FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK is a test, I'd prefer the results of that test be "Zero tolerance" than "Oh my, we'd better coddle you until you learn better, bless your heart..." But I don't think it's a test anyway - it's a way for teenagers to laugh with their friends during study hall. If you can find me more than two or three blatant vandals who appealed their block and went on to become great editors, I'd be shocked. Wknight94 talk 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Plus, if they appealed their block and reformed, then the block didn't prevent their reformation, it instigated it. I think the set of editors who start out vandalizing, and would have reformed if they had not been blocked, but who don't reform because they were blocked, is vanishingly small. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You guys are ignoring the point I'm trying to make, the great big box at the top of ANI, backed by current policy, that says the user must be given sufficient warnings. Ignoring policy and blocking someone because they ignored policy doesn't seem like such a good idea. Perhaps we need to widen this discussion to discuss changing that since a lot of admins seem to feel it should be changed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume you mean AIV instead of ANI? You can change that box if you want - fine by me. Or you can file it under WP:IAR and WP:SENSE. No one has ever written FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK on a page, gotten insta-blocked because of it, and then gotten so offended that they never returned. Can you imagine? "How dare they not let me write FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK in an article about Beethoven! Now I'm not contributing my 30 years of vast nuclear physics knowledge." Wknight94 talk 21:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, it isn't really ignoring policy: Wikipedia:Block#Disruption-only allows for immediate, no-warning blocks for blatant disruption. It might be against AIV typical practice, but it isn't really against "policy" to block a vandalism-only account without multiple warnings. I'm all for leaving the language in the AIV box alone, but allowing for individual admins to use their discretion. Occasionally I'll report an editor here who hasn't had all their warnings, but as long as I briefly explain why I think it should be an exception to the rules in the box, I've never had such a request declined. If you relax the wording in the box, then we're probably going to see a lot of young, excited NPP's pushing the limits too far. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple questions RE: questionable blocks...

I just commented on one report, and watched three others disappear before I could comment...

  • The first was here... a registered user who had no history of past vandalism (no history at all really), recieved a level 4im warning as his/her/it's first warning, with no tiers 1-4...
  • Next is this, an IP editor who again recieved 4im as their first and only warning, made no edits after said warning, and was then reported and blocked 3 hours later...
  • And then was this IP, who was reported and blocked a full 9 hours after their last edit/warning...

Are we just not paying attention to warning and blocking procedures anymore, or have the rules changed in the recent past? I thought:

  1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.
  2. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.
  3. Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent.

Are the points listed directly on the AI/V page just for show anymore? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who vandalises like this shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia in the first place. As for the IP, I see little collateral damage from their block. —Dark 10:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
No, no collateral damage at all, except the fact that the user was no longer active, hadn't been for hours, and had not recieved sufficient warning... If we aren't following the guidelines anymore, why even have them there? How much longer before this turns into blocking IP users several days after their first and only test edit, without warning at all? My point being, if the guidelines are there for warning and blocking procedures, why are some users not following them? Last I knew both of those IP's reports would have been removed as stale or insufficient warnings, not blocked after they had stopped editing... did anyone even consider talking to the user about changing his/her/it's editing habits, or explain (as the tier 1-4 warnings do) about vandalism and test edits? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you mistaking guidelines for policy? Just because you found exceptions doesn't mean its not happening the "normal" way 95% of the time. We have leeway for case-by-case situations. If you have a problem with a particular block or warning, take it up with the blocking/warning editor individually. Tan | 39 14:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see a problem with these three blocks. The second of the three may have been less necessary but almost certainly harmless. See the prior section above - people that vandalize this blatantly often want to be blocked and know that such blocks are temporary. It's a chance to goof around with their friends and it's best for us to just nip it in the bud. Even the 3rd block nine hours after last edit - the IP had also vandalized many hours before that last edit meaning it was less likely to be kids sitting at a shared computer. Whoever was using that IP was clearly bent on acting the fool and a block prevented any further stupidity for a time. That's what blocks are for. Wknight94 talk 14:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Tan, I am not mistaking guidelines for policy, I was referring to the guidelines (read:creep) right on the AI/V page... is 9 hours ago considered "active now" and "recent warnings"? I know the third user had been given sufficient warnings, but had recieved the final warning, and had been inactive for, 9 hours before being reported... I guess my concern is not specifically with the blocking admin (although I have asked him to comment here), but also with the users who gave the warnings and the users who reported... As a reporting editor, I myself would have not even reported the two IPs, being the neither of them were actively editing... and as the 'warning posting user', I would have started each of the three with something a little less than 4im, considering none of the three have block logs, or long contribution histories of vandalism...
I guess the final word is that these three situations are all O.K. in the eyes of more experienced editors than myself, and that is the answer I was looking for... I guess I will just have to accept that the process for warning, reporting, and blocking has changed since I first started working on the project 3 years ago... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, don't give up so easily if you have serious concerns. Yes, things might have changed dramatically in three years. I'm not sure I totally agree with the actions above myself; however, none of them are overly worrying to me. I don't see anyone (any IP, that is) getting an "unfair shake", and even more importantly, I don't see damage in terms of driving off new users. But, I've been known to be wrong. Tan | 39 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to recent events, I'm learning more and more to just keep my mouth shut if I have concerns about something, and that each editor/admin is set in their own ways... No matter what a guideline/policy may state, it can be interpretted a hundred different ways... This is just another case of that... I'm just a lowly unexperienced non-admin, and if no one else has a problem with it, why should I... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Alansohn seems to be the Wikipedia Whistleblower or nosy old neighbor who calls the police about a littered straw on her sidewalk. So in that sense, he's gotten to be too extreme for less offensive, though nonetheless unconstructive edits. On the flipside, he is just trying to prevent vandals from being dismissed too easily, as that sometimes happens when the warnings are too light. In my personal opinion, the levels are more applicable to the content of the vandalism--i.e. if someone is using anti-gay slurs about some actor/singer or is ranting nonsense about the Taliban and Al Qaeda--and thus should be interpreted that way. If I see someone being racist, I'm going to give them a level 4 warning, and I don't care if it's their first edit--they deserve a harsh, stern, severe warning, because that's not just goofing around. That's just asinine, and quite intolerable. But it seems some people are a little too judicious when in this state of mind. Bottom line: If you disagree with a warning, make sure to comment on it. Don't back down; let your voice be heard, because your opinion could be the consensus =).--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 22:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

An Easier Way to Report Vandalism?

After seeing someone who had done only vandalism, I went to report them, but the whole process seems to be very difficult to follow, let alone find. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets confused by all the rather dense Wikipedia policy, in fact I'm not even sure this is in the right place. In addition, after finding this page, reading through it and the edit page caused even more headache. Now, I admit, I'm not the best with technical language, but it seems to run counter to Wikipedia's inclusive policies to have to go through this. Is there any chance of a "report vandalism" button after someone's edit or on their user page? This would make it easier for people to report it, and show admins exactly where the problem is. There's so much vandalism that goes on every day, is there a reason not to ease its prevention? Eldaran (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. If you are using a browser compatible with twinkle it makes reporting on the various noticeboards more or less automatic. There are also several automated processes that help fight the most obvious vandalism such as Cluebot. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
There's plenty of vandalism, and thankfully many editors (including myself) rapidly reverting them with Huggle, often at rates of around 12-20 reverts a minute. Maybe things will improve when Flagged revisions starts, until then it's just down to seek, revert and warn.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
But why not have something like this inherent in Wikipedia? I know there's plenty of people and bots that do a great job of reverting vandalism, but I've come across a number of instances, as I'm sure you have as well, where vandalism goes a long time without being noticed. And it's usually done by people who have a history of vandalism, and have had numerous edits of that sort reverted. If it was just one click to report someone, like it is to revert (essentially), there would be a lot less repeat offenders, most importantly those who stick around for months or even years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldaran (talk • contribs) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think going to preferences and clicking a checkbox is as close to inherent as we want. Imagine the carnage if every idiot that came on here was able to report anybody as a vandal as easily as you propose? Huggle, Twinkle etc. are a happy medium between what you suggest and what is needed. RaseaC (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What could be good is a report on all the changes by an editor in a compact form, along with a clue as to whether the edit was reverted. Then the unspotted vandalism can be more quickly identified and removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

backloged too often

We really need more admins to look after this. It is getting backlogged WAY to often.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I never see it backlogged with good reports. Only with reports that are questionable at best. Wknight94 talk 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree. Of all the issues with Wikipedia, AIV backlog is not one of them. Tan | 39 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Then we need to teach people how to report better.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I can completely agree with that. Have at it ;-) Tan | 39 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Then we need to create (or update) a page and how to report, and what reports would be considered "waisting admins time".Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We already have WP:GAIV. The problem is that few people bother to read guidelines in their haste to report "vandals". In my opinion, this is just inherent in the system. Remember that the "good" reports are typically dealt with swiftly, meaning that blatant vandals are usually promptly blocked. Tan | 39 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we can document until we turn blue - people are just gonna drop names of people that piss them off on this page forever. Warnings or not, vandalism or not, formatting or not. If you'd like to properly format or point out which reports are sub-par, please do. But anytime I look at alleged "vandal" contributions and see a user who has been in good standing for three years, or see an IP that edited exactly once in the last two months, I'm likely going to find something better to do. Wknight94 talk 15:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's not a huge problem. I'll generally drop something on the reporter's talkpage when I run across a bad report, but I have no idea if this prevents it again in future. Also, adding a response under the report is obviously worthwhile so other admins know it's been dealt with, but I don't know how many editors actually check back. So yeah, it's probably just something we have to live with :) EyeSerenetalk 17:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
What I find is the opposite of a backlog - there are so many admins watching this that I only successfully block about half the time. The other half, someone else blocks a half-second before me. If anything, we need a bot that automatically removes reports after a certain amount of time, because the bad ones are the only ones left. Wknight94 talk 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, same here :) I only ever come here via my watchlist, but have very occasionally run into a period when there are 10+ reports stacked up and more appear faster than I can deal with them (usually when the US school system starts its day!) However, someone else is almost always along within a few minutes. I also tend to work from the top of the list first, which seems to cut down conflicts with other admins. I agree that automatic removal of stale reports could be helpful, though doing it manually isn't that much of a chore. EyeSerenetalk 17:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course, then there's always the irate editor who is pissed you removed their unactionable report... Tan | 39 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Editors upset with admins? I can't believe that would ever happen... EyeSerenetalk 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, e/c and wait for Wikipedia to come back...) On the other hand, full marks to Piano non troppo for removing their own report when it became stale. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad.

I used it to copy/paste and forgot to change it back. -99.255.188.158 (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hello everyone, could someone give me some advice please? I haven't edited on Wikipedia for about 3 years... I left because of the politics!

Anyway, yesterday, i recieved a message saying "You have a new message" and the message was basically giving me a warning for vandalism. However the warning was from 25th May 2009, yet it appeared only yesterday! I looked at the page I supposedly vandalised, and it was about somewhere called Dobcross, I've never even heard of it, let alone vandalised the page. I accept that the IP address matched my own, but I can honestly say, i have no vandlised any pages! Yet this person keeps acusing me, and we're havign a lenthy discussion on someone's talk page! I'm not on a shared computer, nor has anyone used my computer... so why has this come up? I don't like being accused of something I haven't done, and am determind to clear my name. Norfolkdumpling (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

From a review of your contribs of today, I would really suggest that you let go of something as far back as early/mid year and chill regarding the unalterable past generally. Your choice of comment is pretty poor, and you would do well to just relax a bit and start over again tomorrow; looking forward rather than back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This user seems not to understand the difference between static and dynamic IPs. That IP address undoubtedly removed content from an article. This user seems to consider that this IP belongs to him - it does not. The user above was not warned - the IP was. When I tried to remind him of the difference, he started slinging around accusations, and making personal attacks. Its a lot of fuss over nothing. This user was not warned for anything other than his subsequent inappropriate behaviour, and would do better if he learned not to assume the worst of people. Parrot of Doom 14:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

I was trying to report someone for vandalism but it was denied (see project page) because he hasn't been sufficiently warned:

Hi, I'm new, I hope someone can please help. There are so many rules about reporting and warnings and such, but this person/IP address made dozens of unconstructive edits (which at least in some cases could be called vandalism) within the past few days. I reverted one set of them but there are so many others. I am frustrated by the vandalism but also overwhelmed with all the policies/guidelines here. I know the person needs more warnings and he's technically not active right now. Most of these edits are very minor and consist of renaming characters on various shows, I cannot tell what is legitimate. Most of it appears to be bogus/unnecessary. I hope someone can handle this? Thanks. Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm new, I was just trying to be nice and report it. It seemed like excessive vandalism to me. I wasn't sure where to go. Obviously there are rules to follow. But what happens in the meantime, to the DOZENS of unconstructive edits he's made? And when he comes on again, and makes DOZENS more? I'm frustrated beyond belief right now and am giving up. I don't know what to do. Like I said, I was trying to be a good person and report it. This is just way over my head. Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: the ip was in fact blocked for a month. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

edit filter based blocks or warnings

I sometimes see MrZbot reporting ips who tried to make a bad edit and were stopped by the filter. I think the edit filter is awesome in that it can actually stop vandalism from being posted in the first place, but can we/should we block a user who hasn't actually completed a single edit? In the latest case, they were attempting to replace an apparently randomly selected article with the word "niggers" repeated over and over. Of course we don't want that, but thanks to the edit filter, we didn't get it. I can't even think of what I would warn them for. "Please don't try to make bad edits again because the edit filter will stop you again" seems kind of pointless. Thoughts anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The concern would be that they will subsequently try vandalism which is not filtered, and you can see half the vandals who get blocked for other reasons have already tripped the filter several times. In most cases I would see a block as appropriate to prevent future vandalism. I have advocated previously, when we were under attack from a vandalbot using multiple IP addresses, not blocking them but leaving it to the filter as you suggest. But the edits were predictable, and the potential for other vandalism from the IPs was minimal. It is quite rare to be able to accurately predict vandalism. As for warning the vandals, the filter itself provides adequate warnings in most cases. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching AIV

{{editprotected}} Please consider editing Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to add the following, or something like it: "If you update or delete listings, please ensure the subjects of the listings (i.e. the reported users) are in your edit summaries so that those who report a vandal can easily see if an admin declined it or needs more information." Manually doing a binary search through the history is inordinately painful. I've edited [WP:AIV/Header]] as well; any objection to those edits? I've undone 'em for now, pending feedback. I don't think they hurt anything, and help vandalism reports. I don't see any point to obfuscation. --Elvey (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I support what you are trying to do, but we generally try to avoid instruction creep. Leaving an edit summary is fairly obvious in my opinion and editors shouldn't need to be told to do this ... I'm disabling the request now, pending further discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course admins know to leave an edit summary. But they don't include the reported user(s), in my experience. [11] [12] etc. --Elvey (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I once made a bot that looked at each diff to find the addition time and removal of each report. Such a bot could recover a complete archive going back to when they standardized the report template. If there was a demand for such information I could do this, and have it update the archives on a regular basis. It could even record if the user was removed due to being blocked, or for another reason. However it would be a LOT of information. Chillum 20:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if searching AIV for reports, blocks and denials is a good thing. Generally, if a report is denied - even for being stale - then there is obviously not a problem that needed intervention. If the report was removed for any other reason (other than vandalism) then again what is the point of recording it. Neither of the above non-sanction results should be used in weighing up future decisions on editors, but where sanctions were made the results remain in the accounts logs - and can be reviewed there. AIV is for quick fixes of disruptive editing, and any further review of the problematic patterns of editors are for the Noticeboards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I have used my tool in the past to examine RfA candidate's history of reporting at AIV. It would show me which were declined and then provide me with diffs for looking into them. It would also help me compile evidence demonstrating a consistent pattern of poor reporting by some people. I agree such data is not of much use against the people being reported. Chillum 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're looking for reports made by an individual, you just need to look at the edits they've made to the page and check the next diff(s). It takes perhaps a few extra seconds, but there's no need to record lots more information. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are searching for the result of the report, and the name in the report was not used in edit summaries it is a bit more difficult. Chillum 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's true, of course. But our 'response time' is usually reasonable, so there is unlikely to be a huge number of diffs between a report and the resolution. It depends how much data such a script generates. It seems to me that it would essentially have to duplicate all history of the page, except with specific details, which would be quite a lot, in which case it may not be worth it. That's my only concern. Ale_Jrbtalk 23:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/Archive_12&oldid=1089740256"