Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 9

User:74.92.89.126, and other PITNs

User:74.92.89.126 has been blocked three times and is still vandalising.

I have been reporting persistent vandals who have ignored final warnings here but nearly all of my reports have not ben acted on, and vandal has continued to vandalise. Why is no action taken, causing a big waste of time by those trying to maintain Wikipedia? --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fighting vandals can be quite frustrating, can't it. They just keep coming back. We try to keep vandal blocks shorter, so that if the IP is reassigned or is shared, other users won't be impacted. The usual pattern is progressively longer blocks, which is what has been going on here. The IP has been blocked four times previously, most recently for a week. In light of the pattern of vandalism, and the recent vandalism immediately following the release of a block, I re-blocked for a month. Our technology is imperfect, and the cost of all the good work most IPs do is the vandalism which comes from a minority. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TD. I understand that - but can anyone tell me why most of the clear vandalism reports I make to WP:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism are not acted upon, even when it is a vandalism-only account? The result is that I feel it is a further waste of time making the report. --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Some pages like Olympic Games and Wrestling are vandalised on a regular basis, and sometimes a well-meaning editor tries to correct the vandalism by editing instead of reverting, resulting in many lost paragraphs. --David Broadfoot (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples? --Chris 09:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I went back and checked and found that 3 out of 5 of my reports resulted in blocks. All my reports were of IP addresses. Here are the two that didn't result in blocks: [1] and [2]. --David Broadfoot (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

One was blocked here and the other wasn't blocked here because there had been no activity for two days, so four out of five blocks. ^Khukri 13:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the links you gave point to the same place, which doesn't relate to either of the IPs I reported. Here are those IP's talk pages: [3] and [4]. --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

First link is correct, sry about the second, changed to the correct diff. First one was blocked by snowolf for 3 days. Second was refused by Edgar181, no activity for two days. ^Khukri 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the message by Snowolf on the user's talk page, but it wasn't clear to me that was an actual block (it uses the word "may" and doesn't mention the number of days blocked.) Also, it looked like many edits had been made after that date, but I see that the talk page uses UTC whereas the contributions page appears to use local time! The second user mentioned above has vandalised twice more since. Thanks for the explanations. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just on a side note and not saying you have, but one of the things we are seeing quite often as a reporting rationale for IP's is that they are a vandalism only accounts. As TD mentioned above we have to be careful with the blocks for IP's and because IP's are not accounts, we would not give them an indefinite block as we would with a bona fide vandalism only registered account. The rationale for vandalism only account can/should only used for a registered account. ^Khukri 10:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But I was not complaining about an indefinite block not being dished out. I was complaining about no block at all being issued. Vandals see these multiple "Last Warning" messages and treat them as as joke. --David Broadfoot (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I reported this user and he was blocked for 31 hours User_talk:69.12.133.15, but it is pretty meaningless as he edits every couple of weeks (since April) to spam us with his business URLs onto multiple pages. Isn't this a case where a block should be put on his domain name (simplefit.org)? --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That was his first block, again a short block is usually given for a first time, next time will be longer. ^Khukri 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My point was that a 31 hour block is meaningless to someone who logs on only once a fortnight to post their spam links. Each case needs to be looked at according to its merits. This user's only interaction with Wikipedia for the past nine months is to use it to advertise his business - and every time he posts, someone has to revert. Banning the domain name seems to have no downside for Wikipedia, and the user would still be free to edit Wikipedia constructively should he ever decide to do so. Thanks. --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about Blacklisting the url then aiv is not the place to make the request. --Chris 07:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I will look there. --David Broadfoot (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AntiSpamBot might be another possibility. Tonywalton ^Talk 12:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What does recent actually mean?

One of our problems is we are creating confusion by using subjective terms such as recent final warning. To one editor it might mean within the last week, to me personally it means if there is a high chance that the vandalising editor is still in front of the keyboard and likely to continue, so within the last couple of hours usually. OK with a registered account it is less critical, but with an IP interpretation of recent is causing alot of problems. Anyone one else think we should at least try to quantify this recent to clear up some of the ambiguity and maybe help so that we cut down on the number of reports we have to throw out? I know putting an arbitrary limit on it is difficult, but we can at least give an example. Thoughts .... Cheers ^Khukri 13:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Registered users regarding the same subject matter or manner of vandalism - I will look back a two or three days. IP's under the same criteria, 24 hours. IP's indicating that there may be multiple users or a mix of good and bad edits, the current session. The further away the warning was the less likely I am to sanction - but I often look into the block log to see if there are any patterns; if they have been blocked before for the same reasons then warnings are just reminders of the consequences of such edits and not a time related notice. I cannot say that this is a hard and fast rule for me, but it reflects my thinking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)The blocking admins all know (and this point has been made so clear, no admin can say they don't know) that all blocks should be preventing damage to the project, and not be punitive. WIth this in mind, I feel administrators should go with their own judgement. If they feel further vandalism is imminent, they can block, and if not, deny the block. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But I think it's missing the point a bit when you have a huge history of vandalism like this User_talk:194.66.185.193 - the same page has been vandalised by the same IP 19 times in the past two hours, and this type of activity has been going on for two years now! What can be done about it? --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, they have a block now for 6 months, it's an educational facility and unfortunately now we've stopped the access for alot of potential editors due to the puerile actions of a few. ^Khukri 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I recall my college days faithfully, those from this institution which are legitimate editors to Wikipedia will take corrective actions with those who are responsible for the IP address being blocked for six months. But I doubt it very much with this specific IP address. I have sampled about 25% of the contributions from this IP address and all were vandalism. --Jazzeur (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, I don't know if there is a good way to quantify it, and I'm not sure all admins are applying the same standard (for better or worse). In a case like StarHub where we have a single IP shared between hundreds of helpful users, and just a few terrible ones, "recent" could wind up meaning just a few minutes. In other cases with a dynamic address, where the same user comes back week after week, month after month, always attacking the same page in the same way, "recent" could take on quite a different meaning. There are of course quite a few mediums to be mixed in, but hopefully you get the idea. If anybody has a good idea for a general rule of thumb that manages to be short and to the point, I'd be overjoyed. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

It took me about 6 tries to get a notice in without an edit conflict. This is not the right way to implement a queue. Of course, mediawiki should try to apply the diff which the submit represents to the modified page; but anyway it would also be possible to direct users to an add section link.

I think this is important: many people won't try so hard. —Jemmy_tc 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You could use the '+' tab at the top of the page to avoid the edit conflicts. Addhoc (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of this; I'm saying that the page should direct users to do so. Perhaps I should just "be bold" and do it myself... —Jemmy_tc 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the AIV should be the page used to give general instruction to newcomers to Wikipedia. By the time most editors have sussed out how to report vandals round here, they are usually pretty au fait with Wikipedia and it's usage. Though for the few who aren't we don't mind pointing them in the right direction and if anywhere it belongs here. ^Khukri 10:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we're talking about technical advice about how to use this page, not "general instruction to newcomers." And I notice that as a matter of fact the '+' tab is not used (nobody in the current history of 50 used it), and indeed the "bot-reported" and "user-reported" sectioning discourages it. —Jemmy_tc 01:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The '+' tab exists only on talk pages. There isn't one on WP:AIV ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The __NEWSECTIONLINK__ text which causes the '+' to display has been in place at WP:AIV for some time now for this reason. The '+' should appear right next to the 'edit' tab when using the default skin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:767-249ER

This user has vandalised a number of pages using his User Id User:767-249ER and anonymously and most recently he has made threats on my Talk Page. Is there anywhere I can report such threats? J Bar (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left final npa warning, and will monitor. ^Khukri 13:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts

Can we put a notice that reminds user that vandalism only accounts are accounts, not IPs? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do, I've taken to leaving messages about this on new vandal patrollers talk pages. User:Alexfusco5 has started an essay here, where it could be written. When I get the time, I'm going to add what actually constitutes "recent" final warning. ^Khukri 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got something akin to that here too. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with anonyuser

There is [what appears to be] one user repeatedly vandalizing the page Cliff Hangers by adding to the image caption a descriptor of the contestant shown (first it was a "black contestant", then "male" then they change the "a" to a "one", and then changed it to "a contestant likely to vote for..." some candidate). The edit seems to come from a unique IP every few times. What can be done about this type of user/vandalism. One of the edits was made by a user who also vanadalized another page, but otherwise they have been restricted to this page, seemingly. thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note for the most recent IP, and will watchlist the article - probably about the best thing to do with the slow-motion activity from the IPs. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jamierush

I added this user and mentioned "Image Vandalism." The request was declined because I used the wrong word and I meant to say "Repeated uploading of copyrighted material," which appears on WP:VAND. I was not sure if it was appropriate to add it directly back to the page, so I'm commenting here. Should this be relisted or listed on ANI (or not listed at all)? --Thinboy00 @76, i.e. 00:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistake on my part, as I removed the request. I shouldn't have removed the request, and I apologise for it. I wasn't really sure of that particular part anyway. Sorry for any inconvenience there. Spebi 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, we all make mistakes. --Thinboy00 @87, i.e. 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Xsyner

I've warned this user that it is against policy to remove block warnings and notices from his user talk page. He has repeatedly been removing these from his talk page. I gave him one official warning and eventually reported him at WP:AIAV. Nothing was done about it however. I've been told by several editors that doing what he was doing is against policy, but I can't seem to find the specific page it's on so I can backup my claim. Can anyone tell me if this is actually policy and if it is where to find it. Thanks. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 02:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, removing warnings is allowed, and it's tacit acknowledgment. Block notices are another matter. Declined unblocks specifically say in the template not to remove them. I think leaving the block notices just makes administrative common sense, even if it's not required by code. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

After I reported the user, nobody did anything about it and it was removed. Should I try again? ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it says not to remove it while blocked, but this person isn't blocked anymore. Thanks anyway. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 05:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pizanob

Pizanob has been vandalizing the article Empezar Desde Cero, saying "Both singers [Yuridia and Shakira] would ultimately beat them out to number 1." That is vandalism. I already warned him.Empezardesdecero1718 (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Game spammers

User:194.46.114.164 has blanked criticisms of the game Folklore (video game), and these appear to be his/her only edits. I have posted a message on his/her talk page, but I fear s/he may do it again. Black-Velvet 15:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: There seems to be a few of them:

• User:71.226.146.127
• User:194.46.97.162
• User:81.96.124.164

They've all edited the criticism section in such a way as to promote the game, many of the edits being quite sneaky (many going undetected for weeks afterward). They all seem to have more or less confined their edits to this particular game, or Folklore and a few others. Black-Velvet 15:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the template?

All, Where is the template to use in reporting vandalism? I don't mean what we post on the vandal's page, I mean what we post here. It isn't on the main AIV page anymore... —ScouterSig 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean this. I can see it in edit mode [5] . --Sandahl 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No report on userpage

Is it the new policy that no reports are put on userpages that are blocked? I found this really pretty helpful when I knew a persistent vandal had been blocked so that I could turn my attention elsewhere. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 04:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't really answer your question - but I still put reports on userpages that are blocked and I have not noted a policy otherwise. Cheers. --VS ^talk 03:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well it partly does, thanks. :) --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 13:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No template for anonymous vandals

Where's the IPvandal template? I had to look at the history of this page in order to find it. Huntthetroll (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi there - you can go to this page to see a copy of all warning templates ... Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Cheers. --VS ^talk 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Or if you are trying to report an IP it is {{IPVandal}} Alexfusco⁵ 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they meant why isn't in the commented-out intro section of the edit window. I replaced it, it had gone missing. --barneca (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Final warnings" concurrent with reports

Is it me, or are there a lot of reports coming in that state the vandal's continued past final warning, but in fact the final warning was issued at essentially the same time as the report? I'm never sure what to do with these if they're marginal cases... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea is probably "I'll report it now, to allow for some time before an admin sees it and responds" -- that or people don't feel like changing some default message, whether because it's scripted or just a phrase they're used to. In some cases one user will report for blocking while a different user issues a final warning, which can be tricky. In some cases, it shouldn't hurt to leave a quick reply saying you'll keep an eye out and wait for more trouble (for admins or not). I say "quick" to try to avoid edit conflicts, here. Just a few thoughts on that topic. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

soft on vandalism?

"As an anti-spam measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes."

I'm guessing admins don't have a throttle, and vandals certainly don't have a throttle, what's going on here?--Heliac (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is in regards to the rollback throttle, it is there to prevent someone from mass-reverting many edits before being blocked. Nakon 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note this was discussed on ANI. Hut 8.5 10:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Stale?

The fact an IP vandalizes multiple times and then stops for a few hours is not sufficient reason to ignore the vandalism and not block the account. Active "now" should mean, at the very least, "active within the past day". There is no question that a vandalism-only IP with two blocks in the past week (207.210.152.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) or an IP that has done nothing but vandalize since their last block expired (75.147.17.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is going to vandalize again, and we shouldn't reward them just because we didn't see the vandalism for six hours after it occurred. Torc2 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is not a punishment: it's to protect the project. We don't block pre-emptively. For registered users, there's more leeway if we see a vandal-only account, but since many IP's are dynamic, collateral damage may be caused by blocking IP's "just in case". The header at the top of AIV says "the vandal is active now and has vandalized after sufficient warnings". IP's may not represent the same individual over time, and we can't assume (in most cases) that they're wilfully ignoring an old warning or block. Acroterion _(talk) 21:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This has never been the case before, and I've never seen vandalism six hours old be labeled "stale" before today. How are we supposed to report IPs generating vandalism if that vandalism is more than an hour old, or are the vandalism warnings just meaningless now? Torc2 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, what's the purpose of blocking an IP for more than 6 hours if you're not going to assume the same behavior or the same person behind the IP? Plenty of IPs get blocked for months or up to a year; why do that if we can't assume that they're willfully ignoring warnings? Torc2 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Typically on IP reports on AIV, "stale" means more than 30 minutes old. Please remember to distinguish between IP's and users. If an IP has stopped, then great. Vandal-only registered accounts can be blocked at any time, but it's still best to catch it somewhere around the time of the offense. Unless it's a static IP, there's no such thing as a "vandalism-only IP". Long-term IP blocks tend to be applied to schools where it just goes on and on ... Please don't view this as softness on vandalism: I've issued my share of 3 to 12 month blocks. But when AIV is full of vandalism reports that are going on right now, the stale stuff just gets in the way and slows things down, keeping us from swatting the active vandals. Acroterion _(talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then where do we put those reports where they'll get attention? And why not specify "30 minutes" in the rules and direct reporters where to go if it's been longer than that? Torc2 (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:ABUSE for those with five or more offenses. As for a time limit, that would be self-defeating - if it's real busy, or if there are no admins watching AIV, a half hour limit might do more harm than good. FYI, those IP's are on my watchlist now. Acroterion _(talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For other views, see this thread. Acroterion _(talk) 22:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New "soft" approach to vandalism?

It's been a while since I reported a vandal, and was amazed to see the new info box which apparently indicates a new "soft" stance against vandalism. I now have to spell out exactly what the vandal did to get it taken care of? Things that were once considered vandalism no longer are? My God, COME ON! We editors fight this crap ongoingly, and the best defense we had was swift and decisive action by admins against vandalism. If this is no longer the case, I will have to think very carefully about if I want to continue helping to keep Wikipedia clean and accurate. IP editors who are basically untouchable continually vandalize these articles without any requirement to register. If I had my way, you would have to register to edit to begin with. If my take on this is true, you are going to begin losing a lot of diligent editors as time passes. Many of us already feel like we are at the breaking point. -- Elaich ^talk 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with all of the above and would like to add my voice to argument that wikipedia needs to have a register before editor policy. I myself am fighting to keep pages free of vandalism but i simply cant do it forever! And as soon as i leave, be it next month or in 50 years time, these pages are going to become full of vandalism/false information again. TheProf07 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes can common sense please prevail. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? on Puerto Rican article

Resolved

The following is found inmediately after beginning of section "Ancestry" in Puerto Rican article:

My friend J.Bonet(Puerto Rican)served his country during Operation Enduring Freedom. HOORAH AT3(AW/SW)Bonet You are a true American hero!!! Love ya, AT3(AW/SW)Smith

I do not belief it belongs there.

Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robruiz (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it and another vandalism edit. Reporting vandalism here is not the appropriate place. Instead, you can revert the change yourself and then report it to WP:AIV should admin intervention be necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember to drop the v-tests when reverting vandalism, they usually scare vandals away or in the worst of cases fasten a block for persistent vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for stronger stance against vandalism

I'm constantly reverting vandalism and reporting vandals, and it's very frustrating to see users who have been blocked multiple times for vandalism in the past, be allowed to come back and vandalize until they've done it three warned times or whatever. Then even when I'm successful at getting them blocked, the block is only for a short period. Can't we have a three strikes rule? If you've been blocked twice for repeated vandalism, then the third block is very long? I'm looking for some help here. There are numerous examples of what I'm talking about. Thanks, Enigmaman (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is usually how it works with vandalism. If an account has been blocked twice already and still vandalizes, I think any administrator would consider that a vandalism-only account, which are indef blocked. If you're referring to IP vandals, we have to handle those differently, unfortunately, which can lead to having to block many many times, since indef blocks usually aren't appropriate in those cases. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember something else with IP vandals: it's not really possible for us to know who's being blocked each time. Who uses each IP changes regularly, and thus even if an IP was been warned and blocked in the past, it may not be the same person using that IP to vandalize now. That's part of why we tend to start afresh each time an IP starts vandalizing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, unless there's evidence to the otherwise. If they vandalize a particular page repeatedly, I'll accept it's the same vandal - although it could be students vandalizing their own/a rival school's article. If it's the exact same vandalism, then I treat it as the same person, and I factor in warnings they've gotten for that particular sequence of vandalism. Otherwise, with IP vandals, you have to assume (somewhat like good faith) that each instance is an experimenting new user and not a repeat vandal. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Even with IP addresses, if you see the address keeps coming back and vandalizing, you have to assume it's the same person. I'm talking IP addresses that have done nothing over the span of over a year except vandalize pages. You see a lot of the same IP addresses constantly popping back up on the project page. Enigmaman (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that easy. You might assume it, if it is a home cable-modem or ADSL account, but it is not guaranteed. You have to assume it is a different user in a school, library or cyber-cafe IP for example, and have to tread lightly in those cases. That said, there are prescribed blocks up to a year for troublesome school accounts, but no indef for IPs. HTH. -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Community practice generally favors short blocks on shared IPs when possible, but pragmatically recognizes that it eventually saves a lot of time and effort to apply longer blocks of escalating duration in the event an IP is submitting nothing but problems over a long period of time -- we can start off counting blocks in hours, later in days, and finally in weeks or months. If there are any specific cases you'd like reviewed, feel free to post to the admin noticeboards or contact me directly. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with Luna Santin and would be happy to receive requests concerning good faith specific cases also.--VS ^talk 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't report for some reason

I'm trying to report 83.67.37.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Single purpose spam account taken all the way up the warning ladder MickMacNee (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there were two separate problems. First, I think the example got corrupted, so for a while you (and others) were actually reporting "inside" a comment, and the reports weren't visible. Nlu fixed it, all should be OK now. Also, it appears you are trying to report an IP that is already blocked, so the Bot removes those reports within seconds. Remember to add you report to the very bottom of the page. --barneca (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, is it not usual practice to update the IP's talk page with a block notice? MickMacNee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Different admins do it different ways. Most do, I believe, some don't per WP:DENY, and some don't because they forget. Sometimes the IP will remove the block notice themselves. I've learned, after multiple time-wasting trips to WP:AIV earlier in my career here, to check the block log before submitting a report, even if the talk page has no notice. You can also see the edit summary of the bot; if your report is removed, the bot will indicate it is already blocked. --barneca (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted for next time, will stop wasted trips here lol MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not realy sure if I should do this ...but...

71.233.64.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seams to be a vandal to me...he did recived two warnings and all his edits are nonsense. AdrianCo (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Only made one edit in months. IPs change, and it is probably a different person (it's registered to "Comcast Cable Communications Inc. "). No need for a block without vandal edits after a final warning. Hut 8.5 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has only done one vandalism edit in recent times. I just warned them about it. Remember that being an anonymous user from an IP address, may not be the same person every time. Keep an eye on them, post the proper warnings using the standard templates and if they become a nuisance, after proper warnings report them to AIV. -- Alexf⁴² 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ok! Thanks! I will try not to report false vandals in the future! AdrianCo (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Calls for Censorship At Wikipedia

Disputes over content must be addressed through dialogue and mediation.

Those who cannot accept a diversity of viewpoints, which is the heart of the wiki concept, resort to a number of games to censor viewpoints they do not agree with and seek to impose their own views on others. Maknig false accusations of vandalsim has become the latest fad by those seeking to block ideas they don't agree with.

Many if not most allegations of vandalism are actually disagreements over content which the accuser is not honest enough to discuss civilly.

Many if not most accusations of vandalism are themselves violations of Wikipedia's rules requiring civility, as they are false charges meant to prevent another person's point of view from being represented.

The entire wiki concept and the process of Wikipedia depend upon contributions by a wide diversity of individuals with different points of view, different areas of expertise, different perspectives, and even different national languages. Indeed, the accuracy of Wikipedia content is encouraged by avoiding a narrow sample of unrepresentative knowledge. The entire wiki and Wikipedia project is at its heart and soul an attempt to gather and capture the widest possible spectrum of human knowledge.

Thus, abuse of allegations of vandalism can be as destructive to Wikipedia as an actual vandal. Anything that discourages voluntary, uncompensated contributions from individuals deprives Wikipedia of accuracy and valuable content. Vandalism is the destruction of content. However, false accusations of vandalism have exactly the same result: Discouraging the development of valuable content. If abuse of this process causes knowledgeable experts to quit in disgust, the Administrator responsible has vandalized Wikipedia just as surely as one posting graffitti.

I URGE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS TO SCRUTINIZE VERY CLOSELY ACCUSATIONS made by those calling for an easier way to block those they unilaterally declare to be vandals, different from Wikipedia's new policy.

When someone who disagrees with substantive content that is relevant to an article can unilaterally declare content they don't agree with as vandalsim, with no second opinion, the wiki concept is dead.

AIV. -- Jack Stone 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything you have written is in effect is how the system should operate. Misuse in the application of vandalism templates (whether it's by normal editors or administrators) in content disputes is taken seriously. These types of problem are not the fault of the templates themselves, but of the issuing editor as is the case with any tool. If you look through the history of WP:AIV you will see large amounts of requests for blocking are thrown out by administrators such as myself, due to them being content dispute or not enough warnings. As far as I am aware there are no new policies with regards to vandalism, and I'm unsure to which policy you are referring.

Now it seems to me you are skirting round an issue and you have a specific case in mind. Now it's difficult to comment in general, for those who are familiar with most/all of the policies in place, when we are unsure of where or with whom the problem lies. Now if you have been issued with a templated warning, by another editor (or administrator, there is a distinction between the two), then I would immediately take it to WP:ANI where an administrator will review the issue, either take action or point you in the right direction to resolve your issues, including mediation or dispute resolution.

If you could give greater detail, then we can manage the situation and if any of Wikipedia's policies have short comings in these areas then we can readdress this, but we need specific cases and not generalisations. Regards ^Khukri 09:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully believe that this is how it SHOULD operate, and accept that. But with large numbers of people involved, there is the temptation (or misunderstanding) by some people who are perhaps unrepresentative.

Not long ago I made a fairly typical addition to a Wikipedia article and an administrator reversed it with the absurd charge that "original research" is not allowed. OMG! Ridiculous. (It was entirely normal content, and the charge did not apply of course.)

So not everyone understands perfectly what they are supposed to be doing, and some of them do not even care whether they are doing the right thing or not. Thank heavens for the people who stop genuine vandalism, which is very necessary. But there are always a few who go off the tracks.

Take a look at BRITISH ISRAELISM or BRITISH ISRAEL. Legitimate content added to this article has been deleted as "vandalism." The accusation is plainly (a) false, and (b) transparently an attempt to C E N S O R contributions to that article.

It seems obvious that advocates of the British Israelism religion simply want to block anyone from adding any information they don't approve of.

Now, the article is badly written at present. It should present the case FOR the theory more persuasively and more clearly, as well as give the contrary view. Remember: This is not just a religious belief -- which would be perfectly okay. But it asserts a version of HISTORY as FACT. To the extent that it asserts a version of history which is demonstrably untrue, both sides of the issue should be presented to properly inform the reader seeking an education in the world.

The British Israelism theory has had a profound effect upon historical developments. It should be an article. To the extent that it is a religious belief, those who believe in it are entitled to believe in it. And someone should improve the Wikipedia article on their side. But to the extent that it asserts a version of history is true as a matter of historical FACT, the reader should be presented with arguments both for and against.

However, all of this should be dealt with through dialogue and if necessary mediation. An administrator should NOT be censoring content he does not like by calling it "vandalism" when it plainly is not.

The same things happened under "Christianity and Antisemitism" and "Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus" last week. There were changes to "Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus" which some Administrator did not agree with. Instead of explaining and documenting his point of view, the chanes were called VANDALISM.

AIV. -- Jack Stone 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal report and removal not showing in page history

Earlier today, I blocked User:82.110.133.156 following a report to this page. I'm slightly puzzled that neither the report, nor its removal (presumably by the helperbot) show in the page history. I've clicked through, diff by diff and it's as if I imagined it. Slightly peculiar, but I'm sure someone can explain what happened. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Bit more digging, revealed Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2. I guess that page is transcluded to the AIV page --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it is, and that' caught me out before, too. I'm not a fan of this set up as I rely on the RSS feed of this page to inform me of new reports and the status of the page, via the helperbots' edit summaries. It means I miss half the story; it was much better when WP:AIV was a single page. Waggers (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed the same thing several times this past week. Did not dig deep enough, and now I see some of them at the TB2 page you mentioned. -- Alexf⁴² 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

it was much better when WP:AIV was a single page - the TB2 page has existed for at least a year, if not much much longer. I believe it was created because people worried that Talkerbot2 (the first anti-vandal bot, IIRC) could crapflood AIV and the reports, being automated, needed a different level of research before being acted upon. Admins were asked to watchlist TB2 at that time, with a couple of reminders issued across the following month. This would still seem to be the best solution - watchlist/RSS TB2 as well as AIV. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Must've missed that newsletter :-) (and its reminder) Given that there's been no "crapflood" is the reason for the subpage now in abeyance? --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I don't know if the bots need a separate page for technical reasons (I doubt it). But, in theory, the reports still need a different level of research before being acted upon because they are automated and supposedly more likely to be wrong. But then again, the level of reports by humans to AIV can be of such a poor quality anyway, the positions could well be reversed! ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It occurs to me that I became an admin after this was notified to the admins. And, givent the volume of successful RfAs, a good number of others will have too. Perhaps if there's no good reason for keeping them separate they could be merged. I think most admins are careful with all AIV reports, regardless of originator. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely came after as I'm newly minted, and was wondering why some did not show up. I am always more careful with Bot reports for the reasons stated. -- Alexf⁴² 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) There are other factors to consider, too. The helperbots add the backlog template if there are more than a certain amount (3?) of reports listed - but they only count the user-reported requests. I think either the pages need to be merged, or the helperbots need to be reprogrammed to calculate the overall number of reports across both pages (and make a dummy edit to WP:AIV when removing a bot-reported request so that the edit summary is up to date). Waggers (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Past-last warning

When we revert vandalism by someone who already received a level 4 warning, any other warnings make it seem like, "Oh, we didn't really mean it when we said that was your last warning," like the parent who says, "This is the last time I'm going to tell you" five times before taking action. What about something like this?[6] Another big reason for suggesting this: So any admin responding to the AIV could see at a glance that the level 4 warning was for a violation earlier than the last one.

When a vandal keeps vandalizing the same article, I've seen admins make the mistake of thinking an edit after the warning was actually the edit for which they'd been warned, in which case the admin fails to block. If the AIV process consistently worked as smoothly and quickly as possible, nothing like this would be needed, but that's just not the case. Sometimes it takes a bit for the admin to research the case. In the meantime, the vandal just keeps vandalizing. This isn't just about the message we send the vandal. It's also about the message we send to any other users who might see all those pages where somebody got a "last" warning followed by several more warnings.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Doczilla (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea myself. Trusilver 05:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks very nice, and says it very clearly. Great idea. DGG (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been my beef for a while too. It always seemed awkward and rather silly to me. You idea is great and I'm all for it. -- Alexf⁴² 10:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(See my comment below on {{{bv}}} which I have to agree now is better and already there). -- Alexf⁴² 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, excellent idea. I like it, and the thoughtfulness behind it, Doczilla. Although there are vandals that could care less about being warned, regardless of the levels. But it does document the escalation to WP:AIV, and for that it's useful, I think. Not only for the user in question and admins, but for other editors that happen to stumble across the warning, as you pointed out. It might also prevent duplicate reporting of vandalism, which just adds overhead to an already busy process. I know I've wasted time in preparing to report vandalism, only to find the user was already blocked. If I saw a vandalism5 (or vandalism4x) tag, I would move on, and hopefully do something more useful. One question: What about a rather obvious vandalism account, like this one that received two level3 warnings, instead of a level3 followed by a level4. It was indef blocked, appropriately and very quickly, even without a level4 warning. Another issue: Bots (like VoABot) often warn users, but most of them I've seen assume a level1 violation. Can we add those up and issue an appropriate warning level based on the recent warnings on the users edits, e.g. - 2 level1 warnings equal a level2 warning, so the next one could be a level3? Or if particularity egregious, jump to a level4? Is that something an established editor with good judgment can do (since it has to be approved/executed by an admin anyway)? — Becksguy (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, this seems a bit redundant. If a user has vandalized past the fourth level warning and continues, they should be reported to AIV; another template isn't necessary. I've seen this before where users have asked if they should tell a vandal that they've been reported and that an administrator will block them soon; to me, this seems like a bit of a death sentence. If the user decides to stop vandalizing, they're likely still going to be blocked; if they don't, it seems like this warning is an incentive to commit WP:BEANS-overload and try to do as much damage as possible. Anyway, my main point is that it looks redundant and over-the-top, almost like a show of power; "we have the power to block you and we will. Just thought you should know that." Of course, I fully appreciate Doczilla's proposal to better the encyclopedia, and heartily praise him for that. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A similar template has been deleted in the past for WP:BEANS: see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_23#Template:Non-admin_fwarn. Bencherlite^Talk 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I read the above closed TfD and I can appreciate the arguments about feeding the trolls, alerting them that the window for abuse may be closing, or even pointing them to the AIV noticeboard where they can wreak havoc before being blocked, per WP:BEANS. But I don't see that it's a potential power trip for the reporting editor, depending on how it's worded. Maybe some editors will see this as telling the teacher and then saying "I told on you" to the offending user, but I see it as not doing something behind their back. And yes, once reported to AIV, they either will, or will not, be blocked, and it's too late to change behavior that time around.

My main point now in this discussion thread is that an AIV report notification on the user's talk page is more helpful to other editors who would otherwise spend the time preparing a report to AIV by viewing the talk page history for deleted warnings, looking at the contrib diffs, and checking the block log. All that could be avoided with a simple notification of AIV reporting. Especially for articles with a high rate of vandalism that tend to be on multiple watchlists, where I have often found that someone beat me to the AIV noticeboard. How often does that happen to others, thus wasting our collective time? Of course, a simple typed in comment could serve as well: "Reported to AIV Noticeboard. — ~~~~", but a simple tag is easier and standardizes the language, and sets a finishing line for warnings, as Doczilla mentioned. — Becksguy (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "final warning" because I dislike issuing an ultimatum I might not be able to enforce. Before I became an admin, I had to deal with the possibility of a lengthy time lag between warning and block. Now they just have to wait till I'm distracted or on to something else. I prefer {{{bv}}}. (Of course it would be inappropriate to block if it was a given considerable length of time before the next offense.} I think it gives an unambiguous warning, and lets the admins know the vandal has used up all of their opportunities to reform themselves. Dlohcierekim 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm afraid the proposed template does not sit right for the above reasons. I think {{{bv}}} takes care of the perceived need for an after final warning, especially if there was a gap between bouts of vandalism. It still has the disavantage of ging attention to attention seeks though. The next thing that should happen after an ultimatum type warning is the vandal suddenly loses the ability to edit. Dlohcierekim 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Before I became and admin I was always wondering about this issue. I was "trained" by the docs to issue Lv1 to Lv4 then AIV. I always looked awkward to me to have to issue a 2nd Lv4 (or what?). Somehow I've never looked at {{{bv}}} this way (for this purpose). I like it for the reasons mentioned. The issue would be of training editors to issue Lv1-Lv4 then {{{bv}}} next, coupled with an AIV report and an admin takes it from there. -- Alexf⁴² 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think {{bv}} is intended to work that way, and I'm not sure it even does. (For example, why do you need the "Welcome to Wikipedia" if they've already had it in a level 1 warning? It's a bit late to welcome them after a level 4 warning!) {{bv}} is supposed to be a one-off warning, similar to a level 4a warning. Just report them to AIV if they vandalise after a level 4, and they'll get a message saying they're blocked soon enough. Waggers (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"This is your final warnig" works good for me except for the possibility of delayed follow through. Like Waggers says, after that, further discussion with the vandal is pointless. Report to AIV and hope for the best and/or message an admin who is actively editing. Dlohcierekim 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You already said you don't like "final warning" -- which is what we have to deal with under the current system. Doczilla (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the AIV board is backlogged or being dealt with too slowly, you can always drop a note to WP:AN or WP:ANI. Waggers (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the length of the arguments against it, this still looks like more people are for this than against it. So where do we go from here? It's no consensus, but if enough people find it useful, perhaps some people can use it and see what happens. There's a lot of guesswork going on here without actually knowing what will occur. (Incidentally, there's a notice that AIV is backlogged as I write this.) Doczilla (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My response from the last time this was raised at WP:UW here ^Khukri 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sick and tired of "soft" administrators

We editors fight the vandalism ongoingly. When a user (an IP user at that!) logs onto Wikipedia ONLY to vandalise, has been given level 4 warnings ongoingly, has already been blocked for vandalism, and an admin takes a "soft" approach to new vandalism by this editor, what are we to do? The editor has already established himself as a persistent vandal, but some admin brushes off the report and blanks it from the report page. What are we to do? This site would be taken over by vandals if not for the tireless, ongoing work of dedicated editors and like minded admins. Seems like some of the admins want to mire themselves in deep, never ending discussions of etiquette and proper procedure. Well, the proper procedure is spelled out for you! Anyone who vandalises after many warnings and a block should summarily be blocked automatically when he vandalises again. Right?

If we can't get support from the admins, why should we edit any more? We should just give up. Let the vandals take over the site.

I would like to see an "anti-peer" review of admins by all Wikipedia editors, and "soft" admins should be demoted. I bet that would get them on their job. -- Elaich ^talk 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself a "soft" admins, and no threats will make me block recurrent vandals without reviewing their cases one at the time. Feel free to create this "anti-peer" review and get me demoted. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a nice change from complaints about block-happy admins, at least. My advice to you is to find one of those complaints (its not hard) and direct your request to the subject of that complaint in future. Rockpocket 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a new change. I consider myself a hard admin, but I think an anti-peer review would be detrimental. After all, if we purge our admins, how many more people do we get to help fight vandalism? We only lose more admins. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you hear? If all softie leave, the only admins that will stay are the ones who will block on sight. Vandalism will be handled faster that way!

Sarcasm aside, the only way he will understand is becoming an admin and having to deal with vandals himself. Getting pissed because you reported a vandal and was not blocked is somewhat childish, but that is my opinion. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself to be pretty quick to hand down blocks, but I'm reticent to give out long blocks to IPs. All too often, there's collateral damage, and we end up blocking some sweet grandmother (which we then hear about on the unblock mailing list). Call me soft if you want, but I'm a stickler for assuming innocence until proven otherwise and I will restrict myself from significant time blocks against IPs unless I know it's static. - Philippe | Talk 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c; I type slowly) Hi Elaich, something in the phrasing of your comments leads me to think you believe one IP = one person, or at least believe it's usually that way. These days, I imagine it's the opposite; many people are editing from home (almost always a dynamic IP), the library (shared IP), wifi networks (shared), school (shared), etc. No idea what the proportion is, but I imagine it is a significant majority. The reason we start from ground zero after a few days or weeks of the last warning is that it could very easily be a new person. If you notice something about the vandalism that leads you to think it's the same person over and over, like vandalizing the same articles or the same "type" of vandalism, make a note of that in your report to AIV, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how often "soft" admins will agree with you and block. And if you can't detect such a pattern, then consider the likelihood that the "soft" admins are right, and it really is a newbie that can be turned with just a warning. --barneca (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the original message was in response to this block refusal. Frankly, I agree with the admin in that case. Since a three-month block on October 3, 2007 expired (which I'm not sure I would have done in the first place - it was only the fourth block), the IP had sat dormant for more than two weeks before a test edit on January 21, 2008, a possibly legitimate edit two days later, and two vandalism/test edits six days after that. Then, you didn't report the IP until two days after the last edits. Four questionable edits in three weeks are hardly worth the enormous six-month block you're campaigning for. Folks need to remember that vandalism is not going to be stopped no matter how quickly or how hard we block. It can only be slowed down from time to time. We need to tread a fine line between stopping silliness and losing useful edits because we've blocked an IP unnecessarily. We should be erring on the side of blocking too softly because nothing is worse than losing good contributions - or, God forbid, good editors entirely - because someone sits at a public computer and are unable to edit. If you are so frustrated by fighting vandalism, I recommend ignoring the recent changes screens and your watchlist for a while. Just add your own contributions and ignore everything else. I've done it numerous times and it works wonders. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse and agree with wknight's summary above. - Philippe | Talk 03:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If vandalism comes from an IP and warnings are issued, and then a few days later another incident of vandalism comes from the same IP but on different articles, I am going to (with good faith) assume that the second editor is not the same person as the first editor. If the first incident got to a level 3 or 4, I might start at level 2 for the 2nd editor. Sure, we may learn that the 2nd editor is the same as the 1st editor, but I must assume good faith. I don't think that is soft. Kingturtle (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"We should be erring on the side of blocking too softly because nothing is worse than losing good contributions - or, God forbid, good editors entirely - because someone sits at a public computer and are unable to edit."

Even someone who sits at a public computer is able to register and use an account. Correct?

From IP editors, I see maybe 1% useful edits and 99% outright vandalism.

Anyone is able to register for an account. Those who don't or won't usually have many reasons not to.

My argument is that IPs should be admined HARD. There is simply no reason not to. IPs are almost always vandals, in my experience. I don't sit around waiting for them to make some valuable contribution. There is no reason they cannot create an account unless...

In the case I submitted, the IP did not edit for months after a 3 month long block. Then, the IP logged on only to vandalise again. The fact that the IP logged on only to vandalise again after many weeks means nothing to me. The IP always vandalised, and proved true to form. If the IP logged on only after months or years, the IP has always vandalised. The IP should be treated harshly. If the IP address is not static (not likely, since the pattern of vandalism was always the same) then another user of the same IP could create a user account.

Fail, fail, and fail. The admin who brushed this aside was just to lazy to investigate. We sure as hell don't need lazy admins here. I would hope that anyone who has passed the admin test would be as viligent as I am regarding vandalism. -- Elaich ^talk 07:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If an IP is as vandalism-happy as you are suggesting, then giving two or three warnings before blocking will result in the same result; they will vandalise until they are blocked anyway. If not, then blocking isn't accomplishing anything, because it is intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia, not punish the vandal for his edits. As for the quantity of legitimate anonymous edits, your experience does not seem to reflect mine. I've definitely seen more valid IP edits than I've seen vandalism by them. In fact, I believe I remember hearing that the majority of our content comes from IPs. I think the possibility of driving potentially good contributors most definitely qualifies as a good reason to treat them the same as we always have.--Dycedarg ж 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What Dycedarg said. Your prejudice against IPs is not well-founded and is not supported by any studies that have been done here. Also, most admins - myself included - disable account creation when they block IPs. That means that people cannot create new accounts while the IP is blocked. Otherwise, the real habitual vandals would simply create an account and continue vandalizing. You're barking up the wrong tree with your line of reasoning here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to "From IP editors, I see maybe 1% useful edits and 99% outright vandalism," you'll be happy to hear that IP edits usually have good intentions. I looked at 25 or so consecutive IP edits just now and saw that 73% of them had good intentions:

edits with good intentions

[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

vandalism

[26], [27], [28], [29], [30]

tests

[31], [32]

Just to set the record straight on "maybe 1% useful edits and 99% outright vandalism." Kingturtle (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. ;) Kafziel ^{Take a number} 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Even if the ratio of bad to good ip editors is 99 to 1 then ip editing works per this. As shown above the ratio is nothing like that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a survey myself a while ago - User:Hut 8.5/anon edits. Hut 8.5 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Even someone who sits at a public computer is able to register and use an account. Correct?" No. If the IP is blocked, we usually block account creation as well. In order to edit, they would have to apply for a third party to create an account for them, and wait for it to be done. If they're at a public computer (say in a library or internet cafe), chances are their time on the computer is limited, so the notion of trawling through the help and WP pages to find the procedure, follow it, and then wait for a response - that's hardly going to appeal to many people. We don't want hard or soft administrators, we want fair administrators. Waggers (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen, brother, amen. bibliomaniac15 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Soft on Vandals?

I think we are "soft" on vandals in some ways.

Problems I see often are:

1) Cluebot is such a sweet-natured and forgiving bot. She leaves gentle messages, even in cases where the previous note in the talk page was another warning or a block. (for example, User talk:24.79.141.149)

Maybe Cluebot could look back a month or two and go to a higher number warning if there are already warnings or blocks in the recent past.

2) The welcome/warning message is way too long. It doesn't read as a serious warning. Maybe shorten the overall message, and put the welcome in one paragraph and the warning in another.

3) Editors often fix vandalism but do not leave a warning. Someone can vandalise a lot and get few warnings. The problem is it is much easier to revert vandalism than to leave a warning.

4) If I know that a contribution record is "pure" vandalism, I will mention that in an AIV report. Problem is, it's a lot of work to check each contrib. How about keeping a statistic for each editor of the percentage of their edits that are reverted on the next edit???

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For your 1), that's exactly what I don't want to happen. If there is vandalism from an IP from months - or even days - ago, the chances of the latest vandalism being the same person are very small. If random people keep sitting at a shared computer and make little test edits, there is just as much likelihood that the next person will sit down and add good contributions or start a brand new account, and maybe even become the next Newyorkbrad! We need to stop treating individual IP addresses as though they are individual people (unless there is an indication that it is the same person every time). Warnings to stupid kids in November shouldn't cause a block to someone trying out Wikipedia for the first time with a "hi" edit in February. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wknight94 about #1; far too many IPs are shared, dynamic, or connected to a public computer to treat them all as individual people. Especially for a bot to do so, which can't make any semblance of a judgment call. As far as #2 goes, if you are referring to {{uw-vandalism1}}, it isn't supposed to be a serious warning. It's supposed to be a hint for clueless vandals that what they're doing isn't approved of, and a pointer to places where they can learn to contribute constructively should they wish. For obvious cases, you don't have to use it. I for one don't use it particularly often. {{uw-vandalism2}} is plenty kind for a first warning in the case of a vandal who's obviously vandalizing on purpose. You're supposed to use your best judgment when it comes to giving out the warnings, and give whichever one you feel is appropriate for the situation. And there are occasionally situations that call for something that gentle. I agree that #3 is a problem, which is why I like to use Twinkle to automate such things so I don't forget. I think the only thing we can do about that is to gently remind people who frequently revert vandals without warning them that the warnings are at almost as integral part of the process as the reversion itself. If you don't warn them than they'll never stop because admins won't block them until they've been warned. As for #4, I don't think it's necessary enough to be worth the amount of work it would take; you can generally judge how prolific a vandal is by their block log and talk page history. For vandal-only registered accounts, they generally get blocked before their contribution history is long enough to make going through it a problem.--Dycedarg ж 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Very small ? I'd like to see some figures to back that up. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF says I don't need to give figures to back that up. I have to assume that my statement above is true. This may be a different point but I see a lot of people expecting me to block an IP for 31 hours when the IP only edits every two months. Even if the IP is the same person, what good is that blocking strategy? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I get the impression that there is a low regard for people spending time and effort reporting vandalism. It's easier for a vandal to vandalise than it is for someone to report them. That's a critical flaw. Repetitive warnings that "you will be blocked" prove the opposite, and I no longer bother to add warning in such circumstance, I can only hope that an admin searches the posting history for themselves. The warning templates do not make it clear that you do not have to start at level 1, this is confirmed by number of level 1 warnings that people give. The proportion of vandalism coming from educational institutions, and the lack of effective action, is utterly dispiriting. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On the warnings front, I'm not as picky about warnings as other admins. If someone has gotten a couple warnings and is clearly continuing unabated, I will block. I don't count vand1-vand2-vand3-vand4. I've blocked without warnings before - there I said it! Not often but sometimes. Esp. if a particular article appears to be the target of a coordinated attack. But, to my point above, I don't block for gigantic lengths of time, esp. in those cases. If instinct tells me that a one-hour block will be enough to make the jackass kid get up and find something better to do (go outside and play), I'll do it. Conversely, if a school IP has been blocked 13 times already and is obviously host to many future petty criminals, I'll block as close to forever as I feel comfortable - six months, even a year sometimes. The point is simply to stop vandalism as much as possible while not preventing any good edits or new good editors. If that means some of your reports go unheeded, don't take it so personally. If you insist on taking it personally, get away from the Recent Changes screens for a while and find a different part of the sandbox to play in. Those are my humble suggestions. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to your assertion that the templates do not make it clear that you don't have to start at level 1: Actually, every single page related to vandalism work says that you don't have to start at level 1. It says right on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace: "You are responsible for ensuring that the template's text is appropriate to the violation: if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." This doesn't imply "Put the templates up in order regardless". It implies "Give warnings consistent with the severity of the offense." WP:VANDAL says "If you are not certain that an edit is vandalism, always start with {{uw-test1}}. Conversely, if you are confident that a user is aware of the disruption he is causing, you may start with a stronger warning such as {{uw-test2}} or {{uw-test3}}." Same deal. Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism says "Vandals should always receive enough warnings before being reported. What constitutes "enough" is left to your best judgment. Consider the user's past edits, warnings and blocks, the severity of their offense, the likelihood that their edit(s) could have been made in error or otherwise in good faith, and the type of user in question (IP addresses may be shared or dynamic, and old warnings could be irrelevant to the current situation)." Where is this misconception that vandals should always receive all the templates in order before being reported or that some page somewhere states/implies that you should coming from? It isn't stated anywhere in any page related to this matter.--Dycedarg ж 18:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We are all expected to assume good faith. Kingturtle (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said the misconception comes from the usage evidence. The instruction on the Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace could equally be about selecting the type of warning eg. uw-vand or uw-biog. As I said; unclear. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that I see and understand far far less of this problem than the administrators commenting here. My comments starting this section did not suggest administrators were "soft" on vandalism. I was looking at other issues, and trying to suggest solutions. I do not take it personally if my report does not result in a block. (though I do take it personally enough that I CHECK if a block resulted.) Actually most of my reports have led to blocks.

I wonder about cases like the IP I listed above. Total career stats: has edited on 14 articles, vandalized 13 of them, one looks legit (Rick St. Croix, May 2007‎). Has received 17 warnings and 3 blocks, leaves the edit summary "Blanked the page." What does "assume good faith" mean in this case? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re this text quoted above: "Vandals should always receive enough warnings before being reported. What constitutes "enough" is left to your best judgment. Consider the user's past edits, warnings and blocks, the severity of their offense, the likelihood that their edit(s) could have been made in error or otherwise in good faith, and the type of user in question (IP addresses may be shared or dynamic, and old warnings could be irrelevant to the current situation)." How can I know if the IP is shared or dynamic, and how would that affect warnings? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ClueBot was right in this case to give a fairly low-level warning. The block was more than a month earlier, and the IP is probably shared (it's registered to "Shaw Communications Inc." which sounds like an ISP to me). Therefore it it unlikely that it is the same vandal back again unless there is further evidence. We hand out blocks per person, not per IP. Suppose someone sees a mistake in a Wikipedia article, tries to edit the page to correct it and gets a big angry block notice accusing them of vandalism. They aren't going to come away with a positive impression of Wikipedia.

Another problem with getting ClueBot to give higher level warnings is that it isn't infallible. It reverts when it sees obvious things like blanking the page (the edit summary of "blanked the page" is automatic, the user didn't add it btw). It is possible that the blanking edit was made in good faith - if a newbie sees some content they don't agree with or is inaccurate, they may well remove it. Potential good faith edits aren't vandalism and should be given gentle notices rather than vandalism warnings. --Hut 8.5 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hut 8.5. In this case, the first edit could have been accidental, as it was merely a blanked page with an automatic edit summary. The second edit warranted a stricter warning than was initially given in my opinion, but not the first. Dealing with your second question, it is difficult sometimes to tell if an IP is shared or dynamic, but one can often tell by the variety of edits it makes. Sometimes people will find out through various methods and put one of the templates at the top of the page that tells you what kind of IP it is. If you don't know for sure, default to treating it as shared or dynamic: treat every case of fresh vandalism as it's own entity, and take histories of vandalism with a grain of salt. You don't have to ignore previous instances of vandalism altogether, and if the pattern of vandalism (such as if the methods of vandalism or pages edited are similar) you can safely assume that the person involved is the same, but otherwise try to give warnings appropriate to the immediate situation at hand. In my opinion it's just something you get a feel for; I don't think there's a way of writing down exactly what level of warning is appropriate to every situation.--Dycedarg ж 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for all the feedback. It is a lot clearer now. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Waste of time?

Am I completely wasting my time posting here? This bot edit would suggest so. [33] Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the user was blocked. See the edit summary - rm 75.144.133.173 (blocked 1 day by Wimt (AO ACB)). 1 comment(s) removed. - the IP was removed because it had been blocked for 1 day by Wimt. If the user continues to vandalise after that block, submit it to ARV again (after sufficient warning obviously). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The user Johnbod reported was not blocked, at least not until about a minute ago. The report was removed as a comment because it was not formatted correctly. --Onorem♠Dil 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And where are the instructions on how to format reports "correctly"? Not at the top of the page. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The instructions are in the comments of the "User-reported" section where the reports are added. --Onorem♠Dil 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But not even mentioned in the big headlined instructions at the top of the page, which seems crazy to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It probably could be explained more clearly. It used to be, but the header template was changed back in January 2007 to remove clutter or something. --Onorem♠Dil 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A line referring to the instructions in edit mode would be enough - one tends not to read the rest of the screen unless warned. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is already this:

<!-- The following are examples of how to report a vandal on this page.
Please copy and paste an appropriate example to the very bottom of the page.

* {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
* {{Vandal|Username}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
-->

in the edit mode (in the user reported section). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd never noticed the Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism linked in the header before. It looks like all the information needed is there. It just seems to be very easy to overlook. --Onorem♠Dil 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Made a slight edit to the header which hopefully makes the guide at least a teensy bit more obvious. Feel free to tinker beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Helperbot Fix Instructions Task

Greetings AIV folks! Does anyone happen to know when the FixInstructions task was turned off in the HBC AIV helperbot permission string at the top of WP:AIV? Was it decided that it is not wanted anymore, or was this simply an accident/vandalism? I don't particularly mind either way, but just thought I should check and see if it was perhaps turned off accidentally. I don't see any discussions with an obvious heading in the talk archives here. Thanks in advance! —Krellis (Talk) 22:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Question for the big guns (administrators)

Been vandal fighting for a while now - However, what I seem to encounter (and I know everyone has their own opinions and what not regarding what constitutes vandalism and what doesn't..or rather..what warrants a block and what doesn't. But far to often there seems to be inconsistency. I'd like to just get a simple consensus from most of you. As a case in point example: If a user that registers an account vandalizes 6-7 times in a row, and has received only 2 or 3 warnings with the last not being a final warning, is it appropriate to report this user as a "vandalism only account"? I ask only because I've done so and have seen many users blocked indefinitely or for a short period of time, while other instances I've been notified that I was acting to hasty. Clarification please. Thanks guys! Wisdom89 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one other thing, is there anyway that an anonymous IP addy with a loooong history of vandalism and blocks could be reported (with or without TW) as a "vandalism only account" - in such a way as to convey that the individual who has committed the latest vandalism be blocked temporarily? Wisdom89 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to block when it's obvious that an IP or account is only being used abusively, such as in your example above; what tends to be the problem is when an IP has a history of unproductive edits, then after a large gap of time makes one or two edits and is brought to AIV - this may be a completely different person making test edits, for example. It's something that each admin has different methods of acting upon, and I wouldn't take it as a personal affront if a request isn't actioned. Black Kite 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand - And I don't consider it a personal affront - however, my concerns lie with a feeling or exhibition of incompetency with WP:AIV. Far too often has that happened. Ok, so generally speaking it's a judgment call in the end I take it. If there is a large abeyance of activity for an anon IP, it's best to assume that the return of vandalism is a new user. However, if it's a similar form of vandalism (same articles, same MO), should this be filed in with the report and is it generally accepted that this method is now frowned upon? Wisdom89 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, give whatever information you can. As I said below, mention that it appears to be a static IP and you'll likely get a different reaction than if you don't. Keep in mind that dozens or hundreds of different administrators keep an eye on AIV. Despite what some people say, we don't all share a hive mind. You're going to get different reactions from different administrators. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's inevitable I suppose. Thanks for your help guys, really. Good stuff. Watch for more of my reports. They come in droves sometimes :). Wisdom89 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For your first question, I've had disagreements with admins in the past. In your example I will absolutely permablock every time. Others are extreme sticklers about a "final" warning. To me, recurring vandals get used to the "final" warning and just add as much vandalism as they want until the "final", then they wait a few weeks and start again. It's probably a fun little game for them - how many "finals" can they get? It should never take "6-7 times in a row" of testing to get used to things here. By 6-7, it's become a joke. If edit #1 shows obvious knowledge of Wikipedia - like template or image vandalism or targeting a specific user, I'll block after one edit with no warning at all as an obvious sockpuppet/troll. For your second question, I don't like when IPs are labelled "vandalism only account". For one, an IP is not an account at all so that's an oxymoron. Second, I would be looking for a pattern that showed a "non-shared" or static IP. That term doesn't get used enough. If you can show me that an IP is doing the same type of vandalism now as it did a week ago and as it did a month ago, I'll immediately block for a long time, bypassing the standard escalation schedule. In that case, I can assume that all of the vandalism is one person, therefore any warnings given a month ago do apply to the current situation. Otherwise, I have to assume the current vandalism is a completely different person and, unless it's an elementary school with 12 blocks or something, I'll look for a warning or two or three, or I'll look for some extremely blatant vandalism, and then proceed with the standard blocking escalation. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So how does one best identify a vandalism-only IP?LeadSongDog (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the reverse DNS for signs of being static. Check the content of the vandalism over a long time and see if it matches one person editing. Apart from that always assume more than one person uses that IP Agathoclea (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my question wasn't clear. Having done that, how does a regular user identify best report it to get AIV?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just go to WP:AIV, make a new report and include a note that says something like "appears to be a static IP - similar pattern of vandalism for months". —Wknight94 (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wknight describes my philosophy pretty well. I tend to come by WP:AIV particularly to block school IP addresses: I think these get dealt with too nicely most of the time: when they vandalize, it's almost always worth a very long block; I would rarely block a school IP address for less than 3 months, but I see people blocking them for 24 hours a lot. As for the final warning thing, I don't particularly mind blocking a user who has vandalized past other less harsh warnings: I don't think all editors are entitled to a final warning. However, if someone HAS been given a final warning, I always make sure to check that they in fact continued vandalizing afterwards (unless their behavior is so bad that I don't think they deserved another warning but should have been blocked instead). Mangojuice^talk 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful modification

Would it be possible to add some sort of subpage, where the results of vandalism reports are listed? It's difficult, sometimes, to find the disposition of reports (esp IPs...all those numbers blur together after a while.) Or is there such a page already, and I'm just being extra-specially clueless and missing it?Gladys J Cortez 19:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not really such subpage, but you may get some information from HBC AIV helperbot7 contribution list. Not the same, I know, but better than nothing. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Or you could look at the edit history of WP:AIV itself. That will give a bit more info but will have a bit more chaff. Mangojuice^talk 15:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's probably little or nothing you can learn from a log of AIV actions. It's usually just "X blocked for Y period by Z editor" or "Removed X for Y reason". But there's a lot you can glean from an individual editor's own logs, which might be more useful to you and is what administrators are (supposed to) look at when dealing with AIV reports. If that's what you're interested in, tabbed browsing is your friend here. Say you thought I was vandalising the joint. The pages you need to look at are:

1. User talk:Redvers for what warnings have been left for me
2. Special:Contributions/Redvers to look to see if the last couple of edits have been vandalous
3. My block log, probably easiest to get via the minilinks on Special/Contribs, to see if I've been had up for this before
4. Back to Special:Contributions/Redvers for a check of any edits that still say (top) to see if they need reverting; better to do that ASAP as the AIV-responding admin won't do it for you unless you're very lucky
5. Offer help; warn; report me to WP:AIV - in that order of priority, assuming first that I'm clueless, then that I'm an idiot, then that I'm driven by maliciousness, in that order. 80% of our "vandals" have no idea what an "edit" button means, 15% do but don't realise the gravity of clicking it, and 5% are actively trying to damage us.

It's the 5% that need reporting to AIV; the rest, in theory, should be reasoned with much further. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on how to proceed

Most of my admin work is in deletions -- I've done less than half a dozen blocks, and this is a new situation for me. I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

216.124.224.103 is an IP address coming from Illinois Central College, and has had a large amount of vandalism associated with it. I've put a 24 hour block on this IP for the latest round of vandalism (but allowed account creation), but I've seen on IP pages in the past special templates for pages with school vandalism problems. I also think something more than a 24 hour block is needed, given the persistent vandalism, but I really don't like to do that for an IP or a school (and there's a couple of good edits and good faith edits). Guidance please?--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The template is Template:SharedIPEdu, so you can add that to the IP's talk page. If there is a long term pattern of vandalism from an IP registered to an educational institution, with short blocks having no effect, then the usual practice is to place extended blocks (anything up to a year at a time) leaving {{schoolblock}} as the block reason, with account creation disabled. If anyone wants to edit Wikipedia from that institution then the block template advises the user to create an account at home and log in at the institution. Hut 8.5 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help! --Fabrictramp (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me say that one should be careful with school IP blocks. If the IP is a college, it may be more damaging to have a long-term block. When it's a high school I never think twice. This can be tricky because although those are the standard names in the states, things can be different elsewhere. Mangojuice^talk 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Priority

I'm just throwing this out there as an idea for now, and would appreciate comment. Sometimes when I'm reporting vandals (normally IPs) who have a final warning already there's already something present at AIV. Would it be possible to implement a system whereby I could change the priority of a vandal report if they're still vandalising significantly while the report is in place but before it's acted upon? Something that would, for example, put a coloured box around the report, or add a 2nd "important" bullet point under it to encourage admins watching the page (especially if it's backlogged) to go for those ones first. Thanks —αlεx•mullεr 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. Even if it's rejected, you can just include a note on your "reason" such as high priority vandal low priority vandal etc. Malinaccier (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just make a further comment if you find other reports are being acted on first and you think your report should be dealt with more quickly. This would only really happen if there's a big backlog. There's no reason to make this at all formal, just when it's really necessary to get attention even faster, add a note in bold like CONTINUES TO VANDALIZE AT HIGH SPEED, PRIORITIZE PLEASE, and it will pop out at people. Mangojuice^talk 04:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mango's suggestion has worked well enough, in the past. m:IRC can be an excellent way to get quick admin attention in a crisis, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Slightly embarrassing newbie admin question

This sounds stupid, but: I've been e/c'd four times in the last hour, trying to respond to four different reports. Each time, when I've finally decided whether to block or not and for how long, I see another admin has already dealt with the report. The problem, I'm sure, is that I'm going about 2 miles per hour, trying to get it right. So, is there a way to call "dibs" on a report? Are many of you on IRC or something saying "I'll take that one", and it's kind of invisible to us non-IRC people? Or is it really kind of a feeding frenzy that I'm going to just have to get used to? I considered adding a comment below a report saying "I'm looking at this one", but since I never, ever see anyone else doing that, frankly I'd be a little too embarrassed to be the only one doing it. Even when I get used to this and start doing it faster, it seems like people would be bumping into each other all the time. isn't that sort of inefficient? Curious if I'm missing something easy. In the mean time, I assume if I start from the bottom of the list, going slightly out of order to avoid conflicts, no one's going to recall me, right? --barneca (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is I believe watchlisted by mostly every sysop and if we see something there, we do our checks and then do our actions. If the user does not meet the criteria for revocation of editing rights, we leave them there. It has been extremely busy during the last few hours and you just have to fight the reporters and the bots to get your comments in or just don't worry about it at all. Most of us do get conflicted when going to block a user, but all you then have to do is return to AIV and try your luck on another one. That is what you get if you have active sysops :) — E ^talk 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't already, you can use popups to check the vandal's editing diffs to avoid having to reload the user's contribs over and over. This might speed things up a bit. Malinaccier (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That helps a bit, but the real time sink for me is organic, not software: reviewing the edits to make sure they're vandalism, reviewing old edits to see if it's likely the same vandal or a newbie experimenting, reviewing block log to decide on an approriate length, etc. I don't mind taking my time, I just don't want to take my time only to have the issue already dealt with when I'm done. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What's kind of annoying also is blocking a vandal, and then going to the talk page to notify them, and another admin has already added the uw-block template. Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What I do is: load contribs, check time of last diff, and last diff. Go to talk, check time of last warning. Check WHOIS and RDNS. Block. Leave warning. Pretty quick in that order, esp with tabbed browsing. Prodego ^talk 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that this is a nice problem to have, as opposed to the constant backlogs we used to have at AIV. I admit it's a bit frustrating when you go through the contribs and make your decision only to find someone else got there first. However, the most important thing, in my opinion, is to be comfortable that you are making the right call and not rush it. If it means that you sometimes waste effort, so be it.--Kubigula (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, if there are too many admins working on AIV at a given moment, switch to another task and come back to AIV later. There are plenty of things that need admin attention. Mangojuice^talk 05:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the trick is, you never know how many admins are working on AIV ahead of time. When AIV is backlogged and it appears it needs more admins to help out, that's the time when others are likely to come help out too, and you end up with 3 admins looking into vandal no. 1 at the same time. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You just wait for the time when you find that you feel you are the only sysop in town and AIV is filling up - I've gone to ANI to request help more than once. One thing to check, though, if someone gets to the banhammer before you do is whether the block enacted is the same (or very close) to what you decided; if it is then you are at least in in the right area. If it is very different you can always drop the admin a quick question as to how they came to their decision - just ask nicely and explain that you are on the learning curve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been doing "mock AIV" for a little while, seeing if I'd have done similarly. Haven't asked anyone about different decisons tho, as I suspect however nicely I word it, it will come off as veiled criticism. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many admins working on AIV at a given moment ? When America is asleep, then you can only count on the few admins from other continents to counter vandalism. JoJan (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Too true, JoJan – I've noticed it get really bad in the mornings for me, around 7/8 am UTC —αlεx•mullεr 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But I would have thought all the vandals would be asleep too? The US might be overrepresented in admins, but I would have thought we'd be overrepresented in vandals too. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. It got slightly off topic, possibly because I wasn't clear enough on the exact topic initially, but that resulted in other useful comments, so it's all good. For my initial concern, what I take away from this is: yes, it's a feeding frenzy, and no, no one is going to mind if I start at the bottom of the list, doing the most recent report first, to minimize overlapping with others, at least until it becomes second nature. thanks. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Im unsure where to report vandalism, if this is not the right place, i do apologize. Im have problems with the user Marcus22 [34] on the United Kingdom Independence Party page. As i member of UKIP for a number of years i think im best placed to know that the party is Libertarian, and i have provided this guy with evidence that the party is Libertarian. But being the EU lover he is, and his apparant 'expertise' of the idelogy of UKIP *sarcasm* he feels the need to ignore the evidence and revert my justified edits, this to me is nothing more than vandalism. Can you please tell him to provide evidence to the contary of my offical claims backed by UKIP leadership, or stop his needless acts of vandalism.

Thanks from UKIP.

Freedom4korea (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no vandalism here; what's happening is that the two of you are in a content dispute and are undertaking a slow-motion edit war with LOTS OF SHOUTING IN EDIT SUMMARIES. So that needs to stop first, and you need to head to dispute resolution to see ways of getting it sorted. Also, on a related note, Wikipedia requires reliable sources for things you want to add, so instead of just adding them, get some verifiable proof. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 12:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know being member of a party certainly doesn't denote a conflict of interest, but supporting Redvers above, you also may want to read WP:COI. This can give you valuable pointers about maintaining information neutrality and verifiable sources, if both parties read this it can aid you in your content dispute. ^Khukri 13:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

be sure to go step by step

I am seeing jumps from uw-vandalism2s to blocks. Please have the patience to go through the agreed steps before blocking. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They are guidelines. Blocks can be enacted without warnings, if necessary. Once in a while a request for intervention will not result in a block, even with all levels of warning present. It is a judgement call. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In some cases though with accounts that are blatantly vandalizing pages, it's best to move on as quickly as possible. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But a Level Two doesn't even mention the words block or warning. A Level Three does. It seems a bit of a jump to go from no warning to a block. Kingturtle (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if I saw someone actively and repeatedly vandalize I'd just give them a {{uw-vandalism4im}} before reporting and skip the lower warnings as opposed to skipping the later warnings. But as they said, it's a judgment call.--Dycedarg ж 22:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I often skip 2s if it's obvious the vandal is going to keep on going (ie multiple repeated edits). 2 cents (pence?) —αlεx•mullεr 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip level 1 or level 3, going 2-3-4 or 1-2-4 if the vandalism is obvious... but, unless it's a vandalism-only account, I won't block here unless they have a level 4 of some flavor. Now, I will add that level 4 if appropriate, note the fact under the AIV report, and leave it for some time to see if they continue - and then block as needed. YMMV, but that's how I usually block here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Severe Backlogs of 14 February

I notice that we had some bad backlogs today, even getting to the point where I and two other admins posted at WP:AN and WP:ANI that additional admins were needed to clear reports. Not a huge problem, unless it continues tomorrow, but it got me thinking - We have AIV Helperbots who do a lot of automated tasking, including tagging the page as backlogged when a certain report threshold is reached. Could one of those bots be modified to post a notice at WP:ANI if the board is backlogged severely? And, by severely, I mean 10 outstanding reports or more. They edit here, annotating reports, so adding a new section heading and a generic "Admins are invited to help clear a severe backlog at WP:AIV. XX Reports are Outstanding." note at WP:ANI shouldn't be a big deal, right? Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a big deal. I have never seen less than 5 admins dealing with active blocks at once; we all have it watchlisted. The concern over the backlog is only the ammount of time they spend at AIV, not the raw number of reports. I haven't seen any sit for more than 10 minutes or so. If anyone is watchlisting ANI, they also have AIV watchlisted, so posting info on the backlog in two places is moot... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest more eyes stay focused on the CAT:CSD backlogs that are happening quite frequently. bibliomaniac15 04:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32 that the point is moot. No need when we watchlist AIV. Definitely agree with Bibliomaniac15 that CAT:CSD needs more attention. I have started recently to work there when I see many admins working AIV (and I did get a couple of complaints from authors about their article deletions - goes with the territory). It does take some research as I try not to delete a CSD lightly and I always give time to the hangon requests. The page needs more attention. Alexf⁴² 15:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD in 2006 and early 2007 was often well into the hundreds of articles; the current rate - comfortably less than 50 much of the time - doesn't qualify as much of a backlog for people who are veterans of those days! We also can't make judgements based on one particular spike at AIV; is this a new trend or just a freak aberration? We won't know for quite a while.

But the solution to any and all of these "backlogs" is a simple one - more eyes. And more admins == more eyes. We should have no self-nominations for adminship that pass, because anyone who can pass an RfA should have been nominated long before by an existing experienced user. We, as admins, as experienced users, know what we're looking for and what the community is looking for. These things are often not the same, but when the two do coincide, nominations should be being made forthwith. I'm as guilty of not doing this as anyone else, so I'm aware of the hypocrisy I'm spouting. Nevertheless, I'm sure I'm a correct hypocrite here. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of 'active now'

I was just wondering what various users and administrators think qualifies as active now, as outlined in the requirements for a report. Personally, I am not willing to block a user who has been inactive for the last ten to fifteen minutes, although I have seen some people define active as having vandalized in the last hour, which I do not really think is necessary. At any rate, I was wondering what other people's views are on what active now are. cheers, SorryGuy  Talk  21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends on if it is an account or IP. An account I will block up to a day or so after the final warning and same if the evidence is that it is a static IP, i.e same articles being targetted. For anything else where I can't beyond reasonable doubt know if it's the same editor behind the vandalism will usually go up to an hour or so. It's all very subjective and to give a black and white answer is difficult, it depends on the history as well, do we see vandalism from this school IP every couple of weeks or is it a first time vandal. Why an hour? Blocks are put in place to prevent damage and not as a punitive measure. Now knowing that alot of the vandalism is in school time and that little johnny is going to be in his next class in an hour is why I pick this figure. There's no hard and fast rules, but this is what I have deemed as acceptable. ^Khukri 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of a shared IP, it should be clear that a vandal will be using the IP on their next edit, and that the block will affect them. This generally limits recent activity to (well) within the past day, and can often extend to several hours. These are the two main reasons for this 'requirement' - so the administrator intervention will be effective. The other reason is that this board fills up really quickly, and can get flooded by unimportant block requests when there are destructive vandals who need immediate administrator attention. I will tend to tolerate less active requests (which meet the first two requirements) when the board is quiet, and throw out less active vandals when the board is busy. An example of a less active vandal (which meets the first two requirements) would be a static IP or vandalism-only registered account who hasn't edited for several days. No one minds blocking them, but this is not really the place to report them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a stale report should still lead to a block if there was clearly a final warning and vandalism continued past that. The way I look at it, such a vandal should have been blocked earlier, but it's not too late. This may sometimes be unnecessary; I would think twice if the vandalism had stopped and the user had spent time since then making productive edits, but that has never been the case in my experience. This may lead to some blocks that aren't necessary but to me that's a lesser evil than not blocking someone who should have been blocked. (Of course, this all changes for IP editors, as per Zzuuzz and Khukri) Mangojuice^talk 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In a sense, preventing damage this way is an exercise in budgeting the available editor time between constructive work and vandalism corrections. One hopes that the "revenue" of additional constructive IP edits (and the newly registered account edits) exceeds the "expenditure" on fixing the vandalism.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected ...

... for an hour. Anon vandals just wuvs 2 play & it's time they moved on with their racist vandalism - Alison ^❤ 23:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Medvall

Removing the following reports from User:Medvall until I figure out what Medval's deal is:

• PS optimal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Malicious account creation) is creating multiple accounts and impersonating other people as per this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PS_optimal Medvall (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• RocketWoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Malicious account creation) is creating multiple accounts and impersonating other people as per this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PS_optimal Medvall (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• PSContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Malicious account creation) is creating multiple accounts and impersonating other people as per this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PS_optimal Medvall (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Imichaelross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Malicious account creation) is creating multiple accounts and impersonating other people as per this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PS_optimal Medvall (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Optimality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Malicious account creation) is creating multiple accounts and impersonating other people as per this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PS_optimal Medvall (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Brentolde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Malicious account creation) is creating multiple accounts and impersonating other people as per this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PS_optimal Medvall (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiberniantears (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey... Medvall seems to be on a fishing expedition regarding the listed editors as the checkuser link seems to indicate. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hi, don't know if this is the correct place to ask this, but do I ever find out if I reported something correctly or not? I reported 78.165.185.156, and it disappeared, was that an erroneous report or did it get acted on? BananaFiend (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See [35]. A two day block. Anything that is blocked or not blocked, simply gets removed with an informative edit summary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've applied (though to AGK) for rollback for this kind of thing BananaFiend (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Oowoo

• Oowoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received the 'last warning' back in Feb/08 for vandalizing and received my 'last warning' yesterday for vandlizing Russian Revolution (1917). I checked over the edits made by this account and all of them are vandals, shouldn't this user be blocked by now?--Cahk (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and done. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon Editors

Can anon editors be reported at WP:AIV? --SMS ^Talk 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they can, most definitely. We take all sorts here... :) —αlεx•mullεr 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response! actually I had already reported the editor at WP:ANI(Disruptive behavior of Anon), and the ip got blocked before i can report here. Thanks again! --SMS ^Talk 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dismayed - don't you take vandalism seriously?

I get the feeling that vandalism is THE biggest problem here at Wikipedia. I figure I'm using more than half my Wikipedia time reverting vandalism, and it is very frustrating, I'd rather try to improve articles.

A couple of hours ago I reported an anonymous user who has vandalized at least 20 pages, probably much more, but there are 20 reports on his user page. He has received four "last warnings" - and it is obvous that receiving a "last warning" and then experiencing that you can keep on vandalizing and you just get more warnings practically encourages that behavior. Latest "last warning" was 26 Feb. Today he vandalizes another page. Another editor reverted and posted a mild warning. I noticed this and reported him here. And my report was rejected! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=196368474

Are you serious about stopping vandals, or what? --RenniePet (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, someone with that kind of history of warnings should not get off the hook just becase their latest vandalism is their only edit of the month, when it's only the first few days of the month anyways. What can a short block hurt in such a situation? It would at least show the offender that the warnings actually mean something. Occasional vandals like that don't do a lot of damage individually, but collectively they suck up tons of responsible editors' time. PubliusFL (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Important note – Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

If the vandalism stops after the first message on a visit then the goal is reached. A block of a few hours would not have any furtherer impact and only would be punitive. It is also policy to assume good faith an IP editor today may not be the same person who edited from that IP last month. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the vandal reported was an IP, it's not by any means certain that the vandal is the same person who received all those warnings. IPs change from time to time (even static ones). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said anything about an intent to punish or retaliate. The point is that vandals who vandalize intermittently are "a source of disruption", and that taking action to stop them does "reduce the likelihood of future problems." It is pretty clear that the same person is persistently vandalizing from this IP address, given that he or she was warned about vandalism of the same minor articles months apart. If we can never block such an editor so long as they only vandalize once every few days, multiply that by thousands of such editors and you have a non-negligible problem. PubliusFL (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I barely bother reporting vandals anymore. It seems like we are supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid insulting an anon who is running around putting racist and hateful words into articles, blanking pages, etc. And especially when its an IP...we aren't asking that you ban everyone from that IP forever, just ban them from running around as an anon. If they are interested in really helping, they'll get an account like we did. We all have limited time to dedicate to WP, its frustrating that we sometimes feel like we get no support from the admins when we are working hard. And YES, schools should absolutely be in that category. They should HAVE to have an account to edit from a school IP. While I am sure that there are many students that help, the amount of time we have to spend getting rid of the junk from the kiddies is wasted time that could be spend on other projects (article writing/improving anyone?). Legotech·(t)·(c) 04:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, from an administrator's point of view, you'll find that vandalism is not our biggest problem. With the rise of antivandal bots and automated tools, obvious vandals are easy to nab. It's the POV-pushers, the libellous users, the fringe theorists, and the subtle vandals who are infinitely more dangerous. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 05:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RenniePet, by all means just work on improving articles if you wish, and let those who specialise in fighting vandalism do the work. There are many, many editors now working on the vandalism side of things, much more than there used to be, leaving time for others to concentrate on what they want to do best. :-) Lradrama 09:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers.

I still think that in this particular case that user should have been blocked. Like someone said, maybe only for a few hours. But even a symbolic block is better than nothing after four "final warnings".

It's definitely food for thought when User:Bibliomaniac15 says, "It's the POV-pushers, the libellous users, the fringe theorists, and the subtle vandals who are infinitely more dangerous." Guess I just shy away from most of these areas, although I've noted some of the confrontations with editors who want there to be more criticism in anti-religious articles like Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, etc., the ones who want the image of the Muhammad cartoons removed from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and the almost-impossibility of getting critical facts included in the Mother Theresa article. (All of which shows my POV, I suppose.)

Still, by chance I've discovered vandalism that was two months old an a couple of cases, which makes me think it's still a serious problem.

Thanks again for all the answers. --RenniePet (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I've looked over most of the edits from 71.166.63.10 (talk · contribs) for the past several months; the contributions are overwhelmingly negative. Slow but persistent sources of vandalism tend to fly "under the radar" but are nevertheless a source of frustration and a drain on our resources. As mentioned, there's some indication that the IP is fairly consistently used disruptively by a small number of users (though it does seem to be used by multiple people). There's a few minor good edits mixed in, and bearing that in mind with the bad news, I've blocked anon-only with account creation enabled. Any disagreement? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems good, Luna. It also proves the point that AIV wasn't the place to report this IP in the first place. AIV is best when reporting obvious, clear vandalism that is happening now. Admins reviewing the page need to be able to quickly see what is going on - contribs, talk page, block. Anything that requires a level of investigation or the spotting of a pattern should go to WP:ANI, when one or more admins with more time can review. If admins spend this time on one case on AIV, the urgent cases, the page blankers and MR SMITH IS A WANKER mindless vandals just get more time to do more damage. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent about 1 1/2 hours last night and today cleaning up after vandals. Very frustrating. :-(

One quick question: Is there any way to watch a user, i.e., have any editing by a certain user show up on your watch list? That would make it easier to follow up when someone you've noted for vandalism does it again. --RenniePet (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not in MediaWiki. (Also, it could be called stalking... although I've also often wanted a similar function ;) ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Most long term/returning vandals are article or subject specific. Once you work out where their interest lays then just watch the relevant articles. Of course that means to track a dozen potential vandals you might have a hundred articles watched; tracking editors would be easier but Redvers is right - it would be stalking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if one wanted to watch a list of editors, one could bookmark their contribution pages into a folder in Firefox, and then periodically click the "Open all in Tabs" function for the folder. Firefox would then open every contribution page in the list in a separate tab, allowing you to quickly scan them all for suspicious contributions. Not that I know any editor that would do such a thing.Kww (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't constitute stalking. Wikistalking is defined as "following an editor to another article to continue disruption...with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." Since RenniePet is just keeping an eye on vandals, it wouldn't constitute stalking. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Plano Senior High School

Excuse me, since I don't know where to post this concern (or whether it is even worth being posted). I am worried about this [36] edit related to the above mentioned school. Somebody announces that he will be "with a pipe bomb outside it ready to blow at 9.30am". Does vandalism like this, making a real threat, happen always here? If not, maybe we should do something about it? --Abrech (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. I posted similar messages on the help page and on the talk page of User:Bongwarrior.

Bongwarrior replied accordingly, I notice. I agree that in future if concerned the matter should be notified to WP:ANI - where regrettably there is some experience in dealing with such messages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I also answered Bongwarrior. I agree with him. --Abrech (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for vandalism. seicer | talk | contribs 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For shared IP addresses, vandalism warnings appear to be unenforceable

Note: This is not a report of vandalism, just feedback about the unenforceability of vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses. Such vandalism warnings make the person doing the warning look foolish. The following is an example:

The shared IP address User talk:138.23.89.187 is registered to University of California, Riverside. The shared IP address User_talk:204.69.4.82 is registered to Riverside Community College District. Both Riverside California addresses have repeatedly vandalized Garrison Keillor‎, Lake Wobegon, A Prairie Home Companion‎, and A Prairie Home Companion (film).

After reverting the vandalism and posting unheeded escalating warnings, I requested IAV. That request was rejected. After follow-up discussion at User_talk:King_of_Hearts#vand_from_a_school, I have learned never again to waste my time issuing vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses. And because such warnings are unenforceable, I have also retracted some of my so-called "final warnings" from User_talk:204.69.4.82#March_2008. I feel utterly stupid issuing a "final warning" that can be repeatedly violated with impunity.

I'll continue reverting vandalism, and continue issuing vandalism warnings to non-shared IP addresses. Just not to shared IP addresses. I'm through seeing several of my own so-called "final warnings" go unenforced despite my best efforts. --Art Smart (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think you're misinterpreting a few things here. You're correct, an IP is handled different than a registered user, and a shared IP is handled differently than a regular IP, because of the number of people that could possibly be affected. However, from a cursory glance of the warnings you give, it looks like you ONLY give final warnings. If you take a look at the different levels and types of vandalism warnings, you can see that there are appropriate ways of warning people. You can't issue a final warning as their first warning and expect the IP to be blocked after an AIV report. And, it looks a little silly to issue 3 final warnings in a row. Properly done, an AIV report for a shared IP is completely enforceable and lengthy blocks can be issued (up to a year depending on the extent of current and past vandalism/blocks). So, I encourage you to continue fighting vandalism, reporting it, and don't take this personally. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see that User:Ward3001 issued a level 4 warning. Were it me, I would instead have given a level 1 warning since it was a new month and it followed a previous 1-week block. But it wasn't me, and I didn't want to alter someone else's warning. So when another article was vandalized, what warning level should I have given? Should I have: (a) followed that v4 with a v1 and looked silly; (b) pretended that v4 was a v1 and then given a v2; or (c) followed the v4 with another v4? I chose option (c) as the least silly looking. Vandalism again occurred one week later, so I issued another v4 and an IAV request, which was rejected. What should I have done instead? Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, I find a bit of research and a good comment at AIV helps a lot. I agree about the general silliness of the warning cycle, but I can offer no solution. If, however, you see that the edits are all tied together (like the Lake Woebegone theme above), it's fair game to stop treating them like a shared IP, because it's the same editor. Make your warnings accordingly, and point it out when you report to AIV. If the admin that handles the report agrees with you that it's one person, a block will get issued. Works about 75% of the time.Kww (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You also have to take in account the time difference between the previous warning. If it's been a matter of minutes, then by all means, issue the next level warning (or report to AIV). However, if it's been a day or more, the warning levels don't necessarily automatically increase. That's where you have to be cautious that there might be multiple users who, in fact, didn't see the previous warnings. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To Kww, thanks for the advice, and yes, I'll be more explicit with IAV in the future. In this case, I gave more follow-up clarification to the admin who rejected my request (see User_talk:King_of_Hearts#vand_from_a_school), but he still defended his decision to reject my request, which leaves me loath to issue any more warnings to shared IP addresses. I then asked him about semi-protecting Garrison Keillor‎, Lake Wobegon, A Prairie Home Companion‎, and A Prairie Home Companion (film) (all of which have been repeatedly vandalized by 204.69.4.82), but no answer yet. Long ago I also asked User_talk:Jmlk17/Archive17#Semi-Protection about semi-protection, but no answer from him either. Can non-admins semi-protect, and if not, how do I request it? Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can submit a request for page protection at WP:RFP. However, the page must actively being vandalized by multiple IPs to get semi-protected, not a single IP over the course of a few days or weeks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From my perspective as a blocking admin who often works on AIV, I really, really dislike seeing people jump straight to level four warnings. Much like King of Hearts, I probably would have also declined to block because the {{uw-vandalism4}} warning was issued [37] a whopping 39 days after the previous warning, which is a lifetime for a shared IP. In no way do I fault you for following the lead of the previous editor (and I can appreciate how frustrated both of you are with this vandalism), however IPs can be blocked after just three or four vandalized articles when the proper set of escalated warnings are used, so I feel that unnecessarily jumping to high level warnings is not worth the assumption of bad faith. If you feel that the previous warner forgot to issue some of the required escalating warnings, feel free to jump down a level or two with your warning (people will very rarely blame you for assuming too much good faith, especially with shared IPs). As an example, if you felt it was a bit harsh to issue a level four warning as the only warning in 39 days, rather than build on the previous editor's assumption of bad faith, you could instead issue a level two or three warning (the thought being that the previous warner probably should have given a level one or two warning, so your escalated warning should be level two or three). If you feel that an anonymous editor is hopping across different IPs to avoid a block, feel free to request semi-protection for the article in question. Good luck, do not get discouraged, and to reiterate what Jauerback said, thanks for your help in fighting vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the advice. Much obliged. --Art Smart (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: 204.69.4.82 is at it again. See his/her latest vandalism. I only issued a level 2 warning for the reasons cited here. --Art Smart (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that a block be enforced/taken into action immediately. This user appears to be deliberately vandalizing Wikipedia. I don't think any more warnings should be given.Prowikipedians (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Already done; Jauerback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) levied a one month block some hours ago. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Boys/girls will be boys/girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polonius79 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)