Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I give up

It seems that vandalism-only user accounts won't be blocked, either:

• Pants123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalized twice after last warning today, apparent vandalism-only account.--Curtis Clark 14:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Insufficiently warned previously. Hasn't vandalized since last warning. Leaving on list a little longer. --Nlu (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

See [1], in which this user was expressly told that "If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked." Not blocking him makes Wikipedia's response to vandalism appear to be ineffective. John254 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nlu's final solution was "rm Pants123, hasn't vandalized for 2 hours, list not empty".

This user has made a total of sixteen edits, beginning 2007-01-15T14:51:59. Of those, most are obvious vandalism; I'm not familiar enough with one subject to know whether the change in meaning caused by an edit was valid. Every edit has been reverted. If this isn't a vandalism-only account, I don't know what is.

"Hasn't vandalized for 2 hours", my ass. He hasn't *not* vandalized for four months. Had the editors who reverted all his previous vandalism left warnings, perhaps Nlu would have blocked him. But if I had a dollar for every "last warning" that wasn't really a last warning, I could buy a tank of gas.

When I first started editing Wikipedia articles, I contributed a lot to them. As my watchlist grew, I found myself more and more reverting vandalism. Now I find that vandals won't be blocked. There's no point in reporting vandals if they continue to vandalize, and there's no point in editing articles if the edits are destroyed by vandals. Maybe I'll feel differently about this in the future, but for now, I plan to take a nice long Wikibreak and spend my time on things that actually have an effect.--Curtis Clark 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would have blocked. This was a registered account, not an IP, with no legitimate contributions. I don't think a disagreement on an AIV report is worth leaving over, however. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But do note that blocking the account would at most stop him for 24 hours (that's how long the autoblock lasts). After that he can simply create a new account. That's why it's only really worth blocking if they are vandalising now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If an admin perceives a brief block would be ineffective, why not do a longer block, or perhaps a short block as a sort of warning with a longer block if the short block proves not to work. If we're admitting our penalties don't deter, than we should have penalties that do. --Shirahadasha 22:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that an indefinate block (and they don't come much longer than that!) only actually blocks for 24 hours. There is little we can do to deter really persistant vandals except revert block ignore until they get tired. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The user has made 16 exits, every single one of them a childish act of vandalism. Here are some examples:

He inserted the word BUTT in a Jimmy Wales quote:[2] "Wikipedia has been described as "an effort to create and distribute a BUTT of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language"

He inserted the word poop in an article about Bahrain.[3]

He inserted the phrase PEE WEE HERMANS BARF BAG in the same article.[4]

He added poopy to the same article[5] and poopy again/[6]

If this isn't a vandalism only account, will someone point out a useful edit in the 16? I can't find it. Curtis's patience is probably being tried by the vandalism, the failure to respond appropriately to it (come on, this is a bored and unsupervised 7-year-old, not an editor), and probably the relentless haranguing he recently got from another editor on his talk page when he tried to get her not to redirect a red link to another red link in an article. There's a lot of spinning going on on Wikipedia. This spinning should not have been part of it.

The user is not an editor, and doesn't seem to be particularly interested in vandalism, either, why allow them to continue to have an account and try the patience of one of the few excellent botanists and systematicists we have on Wikipedia?

This was a crappy trade, one bored and unsupervised child gained by Wikipedia to add "poopy" to articles, and we lose a scientist. We will never run out of children who can spell "poopy."

KP Botany 23:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Live with this, there are over 3m accounts right now, and many are likely to be vandalism only. These are the rules we play with, and accepting them is a part of being a regular editor. Our aim should not be to punish editors, but try to convince them to change. I used to get stressed when dealing with vandalism, and took a wikibreak which only fortified my resolve at teaching, not punishing. Hopefully you will find that a worthy reason to return. -- ReyBrujo 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's certainly a way to teach people, "Live with this." I'd guess you're not particularly effective. KP Botany 23:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds like you're inviting me to leave along with Curtis. I think that's a good idea. KP Botany 23:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you suffer Wikipedia, then leave. If you enjoy it, stay. Very few lucky ones get paid for contributing here, most of us do it for a reason, usually a different one, but valid nevertheless. This site will always be vandalized until the day only registered users paying a monthly payment through credit card can edit. Understanding the fact that it is not worth to be dramatic for something like "poop" in an article can sound trivial, but is basically the key of enjoying instead of suffering this place. And by the way, the reply was aimed at the original poster, not your post. However, if you need an excuse to leave this place, feel free to use my post. You would not be the first one to blame me for leaving, nor the last one. -- ReyBrujo 00:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it looks like many administrators ignore the efforts of those who report vandalism, which can be as frustrating as the vandalism itself. Let's ignore for a moment any issues having to do with "punishing" vandals or otherwise responding to some really obnoxious people in a way that may or may not wind up changing their behavior. (That strikes me as unlikely, but let's go with it.) When administrators respond by effectively ignoring a report because a vandal hasn't done anything in the space of time of a long lunch break it makes reporting vandalism pointless in many instances. That's frustrating for the majority of the editors who are actually contributing to wikipedia. Shouldn't it be at least as important not to drive away good editors as to attempt to turn vandals into good editors? That's clearly what is happening above. One should not drive away an existing contributor in favor of possibly turning a vandal into a contributor. That seems like a bad bargain based on a bad bet.

A vandal who has been active in the past 24 hours is IMO "currently active" for all intents and purposes. If their vandalism has occurred within the time period that they would be blocked that is current enough. However, even if one weren't to adopt such a standard, in several instances I've seen reports ignored even when the vandalism has occurred in as little as the last 15-20 minutes or so only to have the vandal respond the next morning. This is particularly a problem when a long list of "final warnings" appear on a talk page because administrators deem that user has stopped for the nonce, not only the vandals but the responsible member of the Wikipedia community recognize the futility and effort put into their efforts. Geeman 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing if the vandal has made one edit, and got a test4im for no apparent reason. But if that happens when people get the full set of warnings, it is a problem. -Amarkov moo! 03:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a way of recognizing that some edits are so clearly despicable and obnoxious that one warning should be sufficient? It's not particularly unusual for a vandal to post some really unpleasant racist, sacriligious or vulgar pictures or materials. Shouldn't that be enough to earn a block? Geeman 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there should be. Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that any vandalism worse than "I like cheese" qualifies as that, which it does not. But there are some cases where an immediate warning is perfectly fine. -Amarkov moo! 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) When two fine contributors come here saying that we're not taking a hard enough line on vandalism, I think we can give a better answer than, "put up with it." There are probably a couple of misunderstandings here. One is that template:test3 sounds like a final warning but many admins do not count it as a final warning, even for vandalism-only accounts. Also, Theresa is not advocating short blocks for vandalism-only accounts; what she appears to be saying is that a long block on an account is only a 24-hour block on the location used for the account. I get the impression that some admins will block a vandalism-only account after a level3 warning or less, although I don't know why all admins don't. Perhaps we should discuss that. Our good contributors' concerns should be taken seriously, and given a lot more respect than they've been given here. Kla'quot 03:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time that happened, nor will be the last time. Yes, it may indicate that things are not working fine, but then again, I am sure every other guideline, policy, style guide or administrator-related page has been criticized at least once. Administrative actions are usually not binding, nor are definitive. So, if you did not like an administrator removing your report, re-add it asking a second opinion, or post it at the Incidents branch of AIV, or discuss with the administrator who removed it, or ask another administrator to take a look. Yes, vandals have all the advantages here, unfortunately. And yes, different admins think different. If policies were strict and contemplated every possibility with no room for discussions, deletion and blocking would be handled by bots. If you want, you could request to change our blocking policy, adding an item to clarify that "accounts with only vandal edits in the last month" should be blocked on sight. I am not saying we should not worry when users in good standing come here to say things are not working. But if you don't agree, you should look for consensus to change the rules with which we play. -- ReyBrujo 04:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the account. No sense in keeping it around...I for one would hate to lose some of the good editors that are frustrated here. Hopefully everyone can take a few deep breaths & better work together. — Scientizzle 05:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If anything there should be a change in the warning policy. The example given above was given a last warning for a first warning, then an instant block without further warning was expected nearly 3 months later. It is important to give early warnings, and if necessary keep giving early warnings, or they will just get pissed off and come back with a new account to do even more damage. It needs to be explained that we are making an encyclopaedia, that they can contribute positively, and that they can also make their mark on the Internets in the sandbox, which is something not contained in the later warnings. There are too many cases where you get a report on AIV that someone has "vandalised past a last warning" to see they have made two test edits. Test3 should hardly ever be given as a first warning. We usually need to be more understanding than that. Vandals don't need to be insta-blocked, because that is an extremely short term and often counter-productive measure on a wiki - they need to be encouraged to be positive contributors. How much positive encouragement did the above vandal get? None at all. If they are given explanation and encouragement and they still don't change, then they should be blocked. But it needs explaining to them first. If it hasn't been explained then administrators are, quite rightly, often less likely to block. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 05:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Expired long-term block

66.211.134.194 (Talk) has just come off a 6-month block and has immediately started vandalising again. Should he/she immediately be reblocked, or should he/she get an 'Only Warning' message first? Or a full set of warnings? Stannered 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it's probably not the same person you should assume that it was the first act of vandalism the person did. --WikiSlasher 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP anon-only for 8 years. In my view, school IPs like this that exhibit a pattern of incorrigible vandalism need to be blocked for very long periods. This block will stop the vandals cold, and may (hopefully) help disassemble the vandalism culture there. Mangojuice^talk 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. 8 years... Maybe I missed something, but I don't see that in the block log. — Scientizzle 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird that it isn't showing up. The user is definitely blocked: I just tried to re-enter the block and it says the user is already blocked, but the 6 month block from 10/31 has definitely expired by now. Mangojuice^talk 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is where to look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. — Scientizzle 21:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And my faith in the system is restored! Cheers, Stannered 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the 8 year block not show up on the block log? I see it shows up as a search, but only the 8 year shows up not the long history. Jeepday (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

8 years is a bit long, the IP will probably be reassigned by then. But on topic, this is not the first report of Block log funkyness, see this AN report. Prodego ^talk 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RD Reynolds

Even though this article has been semi-protected, it's still getting vandalized allot. Mostly by User:ECW500 ^---SilentRAGE! 01:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to request that the semi-protection be upgraded, you can go to WP:RFPP, but I don't see a reason to at the moment, as the user only has two edits on that article. Just revert and warn. --Coredesat 01:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nahhh... you can do it. Not only do I have no clue how to warn somebody, but I'm too much of a lazy person to do it, even if I knew how. Plus, although I help edit here at Wikipedia, I'm not about to do the bitch-lackey work. :) ^---SilentRAGE! 05:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting attitude to show to those who you are asking to do the "bitch-lackey work" SGGH ^speak! 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're a moron. Don't you get it? I don't edit these Wikipedia articles for me. I don't report vandalism for me. I DO IT FOR THE WEBSITE'S BENEFIT. Damn, these people should be grateful that people even participate in this shit. So no, I won't do any of the shit work, and you should just be happy that I warned you that somebody was vandalizing YOUR article. Hell, maybe next time I should just let all of the vandals slip by... ^---SilentRAGE! 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice sought; how to proceed where commentator moves my comment off discussion pg without my permission

Hi. Am looking for advice, as these are unfamiliar waters. I wrote a comment on the discussion page of a category deletion review that is now ongoing. The admin, whose decision I differed with, moved my comment off the discussion page without my permission. While contining to input his contrary views on the page. He has not responded to my repeated requests to return my comment to the page. And he has RV'd another editor's attempt to do so.

Is this the place that I should report this to gain some assistance? And is there a name for his action, or for the primary policy that it violates? Or a format to follow?

Thanks. Epeefleche 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Further information:It appears that the discussion Epeefleche is referring to is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 3 and the editor that moved long comments to the talk page is Radiant!. (Disclaimer: I'm not involved in this in any way--just adding details that were lacking) --Finngall ^talk 15:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is accurate. The reason given by Radiant for his unauthorized moving of my comments (that opposed his deletion decision, as an admin, and his characterizations) was the length of the comments. He then proceeded on the discussion page to input more of his own, contrary, comments. IMHO his actions are akin to Bill Clinton breaking into Monica's house, stealing her blue dress, and then claiming that his only interest was "spring cleaning."Epeefleche 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Compromise: Briefly summarize your comments (say, 4-5 sentances) and also link to the full set of comments on the talk page. I want to validate that you have a right to be heard, but if we assume good faith on the part of Radiant he may genuninely feel that the comments left are so long that they make the discussion hard to follow. Rather than trying to return the entire comments, why not try to find a middle ground, where your comments can be heard, but do not overwhelm the CFD in question so as to make it hard to follow.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a reasonable compromise (assuming that all parties are acting reasonably). Barring that, you could request a third opinion or post to the admin noticeboard. The less troublesome the solution, though, probably the better. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirection Vandalism

I am killing myself finalising this but there is what looks like redirection vandalism is turning up. In theory both on the CD (which includes the WP redirection database) and on Wikipedia searches throw up redirected page titles to target. Thus if you search for Fool's Gold you get Pyrites. However, someone seems to think it funny to do things like this: William_III_of_poo so that search on "poo" goes to William III. Equally Zombie_Gerald_Ford means that "Zombie" goes to Gerard Ford. I wondered if a bunch of kids are wetting themselves over how funny it is but most of them seem to be done by relatively established editors (generally some time ago). Is there any legit reason why these pages might exist or could we search the redirect database for bad words and delete the lot? --BozMo talk 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Both redirects have been deleted by me as nonsense. JoJan 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the dark

Greetings,

At this particular moment I'd like to thank all the editors here who spend a portion of their time not only editing and contributing to Wikipedia, but maintaining the integrity of its content while keeping an ever-watchful eye on people who would seek to poison all that we have worked hard to create.

However, wtih great sadness, we have partly failed in the construction of a system that works for the benefit of our work. I say 'partly' for a great deal is and can be accomplished here at the WP:AIV. I have come to the WP:AIV with many griefs about vandals. When I feel powerless and frustrated in a situation, I reach out for help, and I've always had the fortune of being caught by an administrator.

This time I came across a situation I have dealt with many times in the past but where an interpretation of the policy led to no action. My report was removed and under WP:AIV - Administrators 2. I was supposed to be informed that my report had been removed with out action. This was not the case and I came back after finding my report gone and a brief explanation in the history, "rm 208.20.156.194. no recent activity".

Please note this is not a shared IP ClearSKY. This individual user in the last 24 hours had made 16 edits all indentified as vandalism. 11 edits of vandalism were made on May 9th to which the user received 3 tiers of warnings, and then on May 10 another 5 edits. 8-10 hours later I discovered vandalism by this user, reverted his changed, and reported my findings.

The said reaction was WP:AIV - Editors 1. "The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances."

The word now had been taken literally to a degree and most likely defined by the administrator as with in the hour. However, I also think now could be interpreted as today or on-going. However, the parameters of 'now' is clarified by WP:BLOCK. We'll get to that later.

There was also the matter of the rider in that policy, except under unusual circumstances, which leaves that policy to be void at the discretion of the administrator at the time. Perhaps this gives the administrator a human element to respond in ways that policies cannot always be effective.

I was referred to WP:BLOCK - "Blocking is the method by which administrators may prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". That is the first line in the policy, but then again, the policy is several pages long. I thought it to be quite obvious that vandalism, warning, more vandalism, and more warnings, would ultimately lead to more vandalism by this user and possibly prevent further damage and disruption. Afterall, we do 6 month blocks for instances were a pattern has been reliable enough to note further 24 blocks will not protect the encyclopedia.

As I read further down the page for WP:BLOCK I come across Disruption:

A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

• persistent vandalism;
• edit warring or revert warring;

As stated on the top of every notice board it lists other various boards to make sure you're in the right place: "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV". Persistent negates the concept of 'now'. It refers to a repeated process and over a length of time. All other uses of persistent in a present tense are modified leaving the definition clearly defined and both apply. The IP in question was one edit away from the WP:3RR and continuously made all his/her edits of the same nature.

How can we as a community better define or better the human element of understanding? When does punitive become protection? When a user continues to vandalize and ignores warnings, are you protecting the encyclopedia by refusing to punish him? Whenever you block or semi-protect an article you're making an action that is protective and also punitive. The act of removing the privledges of a person is punitive and where we've separated the two, you cannot. The only instance where punitive stands alone is when a user who no longer violates the rules of Wikipedia is blocked. However, no reasonable person would say that in this case enough time has gone by to say, this user has not edited in the last 10 hours and thus no longer violates policies. They'll only wake up the next day to find articles vandalised and nothing to be done since they weren't 'caught in the act'. Do we leave unchanged a policy that does not work entirely? This isn't a solution or the way I want things to be done, but its a start, and every change starts somewhere. It all depends on who was part of it. Mkdw^talk 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest a different approach to slow motion vandals

Chrislk02 suggested this subject be brought up on this talk page instead of his talk page. It relates directly to [7] above, but that thread has no posts in the last 5 days and is a little stale.

It appears many admins on AIV interpret WP:BLOCK to mean that only IP’s vandalizing "as we speak" will be blocked, and that a final warning to an IP issued more than 12-24 hours ago has more or less expired, and either a whole new set of warnings (or at least a new final warning every day) is needed, on the assumption that this is a brand new vandal that needs to be given the benefit of the doubt.

I really do understand the concept of collateral damage, but I also daily run across IP’s with nothing but occasional vandal edits, a dozen or so per week, for the last month, and strings of “final warnings”, one after the other, on their talk page. This strains WP:AGF past the breaking point, doesn’t it? The one I ran across today, for example, is not nearly the worst I’ve seen, but has the advantage of being right at my fingertips: 209.3.145.3.

In anticipation of another response, I understand blocks are not meant to be punitive, and I’m not proposing that change. But surely a block can be instructive? Something along the lines of "There are consequences for your behavior". If nothing else, a slow-motion block like I’m proposing is still preventative, it’s just preventing a dozen vandal edits a week instead of per day.

Is it reasonable to propose that we block IP’s who are not vandalizing “right-this-very-second”, but who have a final warning less than X days old (I propose X = 7) AND (with nothing but vandalism edits for the last Y edits (I propose Y = 10), OR who have nothing but vandalism edits in the last Z days (I propose Z = 14))?

X, Y, and Z don’t even need to be official written in stone, and in fact probably shouldn’t be. It could be up to the admin’s discretion, just as long as it is generally agreed that they aren’t zero, infinity, and infinity, respectively.

Obviously the block wouldn't be long term at first, but would hopefully get the vandals' attention.

Collateral damage would not be zero, but would be very, very small. It's only fair to bring up that the IP mentioned above had what appeared to be one legitimate edit on, I think, March 8th. But for IP's like this, don't we also have to balance the potential lost legit edit with the known avoided vandalism, and the potential lost fed-up long term editor like Curtis above? I'm not sure which one it is, but one of the block templates I’ve seen is worded pretty gently, and wouldn’t chase away many of the legit anon editors who happen to try to make their first edit in a vandal den.

I’m about to go home, where my internet service has broken down, but I hope this isn’t beating a dead horse and that there's some feedback when I come back tomorrow morning. --barneca (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the most legitimate way of dealing with "slow motion vandals" or "serial vandals" is that the length of time between vandalism events should be used as the basis for determining both whether their attacks are "recent" enough and the length of a block. Of course, that would have be a rough guess, but someone who vandalizes twice a week on average should get a good 4-7 day block in hopes of stopping their next attempt, and an attack 2-3 days after a final warning should be recognized as their most "recent". Geeman 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Much better idea than mine. --barneca (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

If I report vandalism, I understand that I should sign said report. I forgot to. I re-report vandalism with a sign and that is reverted. Anyone know why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Looks like you should be asking Stephen (talk · contribs), judging from this diff and this diff. From their first edit summary, it sounds like they're saying the incident happened too long ago to block over, but asking them directly may get you a more accurate answer. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Turn-around time.

How long does it take for intervention to take place for an anonymous vandal who is on a defacing spree? An anonymous user who has received the proper set of warnings has turned on those who placed the notices in the first place! --Aarktica 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer is, it depends. If they need to be blocked it can take between thirty seconds and twenty minutes, depending on who's around and how big the queue is. If it's not clear they need to be blocked it can take between thirty seconds and two hours to realise this. Sometimes it can take less than thirty seconds, but an admin usually has to check the warnings, who uses the IP, what previous edits they have made, decide whether to block, and then perform the block. I think you experienced about four minutes - not bad really. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to almost always have a good response time. Jmlk17 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are we so easy on blatant vandals?

IF an IP has a long history of vandalism it should be blocked for a very long time, but that hardly ever happens, it's very frustrating to put your time into maintating the integrity of wikipedia only to have all your hard work ignored. If they really want to edit constructively they can always create an account/log in. I see no reason to allow blatent vandals and sockpuppets to continue to edit as anons, it's a smack in the face to vandalism/username patrollers everywhere--Heliac 15:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, it's hard to be sure that an IP is statically assigned. For static IPs, I would agree: if they are being used for vandalism, a longer block is appropriate. But for a dynamic IP, this doesn't make sense, because the vandal will probably only use that IP for a day or so, and then will get a new IP. If there's good evidence that an IP is static from their contributions, I myself would certainly consider a longer block. Mangojuice^talk 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's where the escalation process and history comes in. I wonder though, is there a mechanism to determine if an IP is statically assigned?
On another note, put me in the camp of requiring an account to edit on Wikipedia. --Kimon^talk 15:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm swinging that way too since that bug makes it impossible to warn IPs. Many would stop after a warning... — Scientizzle 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Join the club, guys. Kafziel ^Talk 16:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No we can't just change it to all acount editing that destroys the basis of the premise even though we put up with a lot of IP vandals changing the project to only account editing would hurt the project severly both pubicly and priveatly. --St.daniel ^Talk 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm not all the way there. The majority of IP edits are neutral-to-positive contributions. That we cannot properly contact IP editors about anything--vandalism warnings, advice, commendations, informative links--shifts the cost-benefit of anonymous editing towards a much lower net gain. Kafziel, if someone creates a Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213, count me in. — Scientizzle 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of anon editors altogether would IMO go too far. But an IP address that contributes 95% to 100% vandalism, always doing just enough to get a level 3 or 4 warning and then stopping, is a net detriment to the project, whether it's a shared IP or not. There are mechanisms in place (clunky, but serviceable) for legit editors to register and edit from vandal dens. A decent sized chuck of admins are, I think, ready and willing to block persistent vandals. The question is, where do we go to report blatant, but inactive-at-the-moment IP addresses? WP:ANI would get swamped. --barneca (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be in favor of restricted editing for vandals? Say, when an IP edits a page, instead of being brought back to the page, they're brought to a page saying "Your edit has been submitted for checking. If it is not approved, the edit will not appear. (blah blah, show a queue) To bypass the edit check, please create an account." and send their edit to an application (preferably browser flash, so that it can be used crossplatform) that user accounts are logged into. User accounts get a display like the DIFF of an edit, and are given a quick Approve/Deny button. If "Approve" is clicked, the edit is posted, but at the end of the comment, it would include (IP Edit sponsored by: User:Loggedinguy), and the edit would go to both the IP and the user's contribs. Of course, this would also put some responsibility on the user that approved it to not just click buttons randomly. Also keep a log of "Denied Edits", again for both IP and user, so you can see if someone is abusing the deny button, or block someone for vandalism even if all their changes are shot down before they effect the main system. The biggest problem I see with this is programming, but considering all the work that goes into wikipedia, I'd be stunned if no one would be able/willing to make this -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that the majority of anons aren't vandals, this seems like we're punishing them. Besides, what happens when an edit is made after the anon submits their edit, but before it's approved? Pain in the ass edit conflict that the anon can't address readily. Also, the admins need one more backlogged area like we need a hole in the head... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say admins? I very clearly just said users. In case of an edit conflict, just throw the edit out, and have it automagically leave a post on the user's talk page. The majority of anons might not be vandals, but the majority of anons aren't trustworthy, reliable, or even capable editors either. When I do see an edit from an IP that truly ADDS KNOWLEDGE to an article, it's usually in horrible internet english. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

True, I put the admin bit in. But even disregarding that, we're adding a superfluous layer for anon editors to go through. I remain convinced that this is a bad idea, both because of the inherit bad-faith assumption and the sheer amount of work that would be required just to make life harder for anons. We need to crack down on vandal anons, not anons in general. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen articles where anons contributed greatly (e.g., Bill Cowher), even if they didn't do a very good job with sourcing, linking, etc. But that all came later. The Evil Spartan 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer the question: because we're a bunch of pussies? Seriously. It drives me crazy to see people hold onto WP:AGF like it actually changes the vandal's edits from bad faith to good faith. If they're vandalizing, block and move on. Don't worry about the exact number of warnings, just block them. If an IP has a steady history of vandalism, block for a longer range; if they don't, keep it short and sweet. Not. That. Complicated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say I agree completely. I've seen IPs with histories of vandalism, all from the same user (e.g., not shared), but simply because it has so much vandalism, someone assumes it shared, and tags it. I'm sick and tired of watching literally the same IP make the same vandalism to the same articles over several days/weeks/months/etc., and having people block it for 3 hours because it's shared (not without a complete 4 set of warnings in between of course). The Evil Spartan 17:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia really does need to have a "three strikes" policy (if not two strikes). If someone with a blocked IP seriously wants to edit, they can get an account -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen consensus on this type of this before. So who wants to be the goat and to move this discussion to WP:BLOCK? I'm sorry, someone who adds the text 'GEORGE BUSH IS A FUCKING NIGGER to an article is never going to reform (and if they do, they can probably stand to wait 1 day and get a new account). I mean, c'mon, someone decides to move Al Sharpton to Nigger boy, and we warn the person? i say 1 strike and you're out for extremely bad blatant vandalism (at least for usernames). It would do an amazing job of actually upholding the part of WP:BLOCK that blocks should not be ideological, but be protecting Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked accounts within a single edit. It's terribly fun when it is so blatantly obvious they'll never be productive. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, i have seen some pretty crazy people reform, dont say it wont ever happen. We were all immature kids at one time, and at some point most of us grew up. Second of all the complaint is generally in regards to IP addresses. It does not have to do with "reforming" it has to do with how long is this idiot going to be on this IP and then move to the next. What happens when we block an IP for a month and 3 days after the block, the vandal gets a new IP, and the new recipient of the blocked IP cant edit? I always say we can ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS remove the changes a vandal has made. We can never regain a possible new editor who tried to fix an error found out there IP was blocked and just gave up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed to be easy, especially at first, on IPs. But if a vandal comes back, on the same IP, clearly the same person, and we block for 3 hours on a school address when the vandalism has been the same guy for weeks? C'mon. And I'm talking about logged in blatant vandals - the warning system for them is just dumb. I say at most one warning, then they should get zapped, as it's no longer a mistake. The Evil Spartan 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not disagreeing with you on logged in vandals. I very regularly indef block those accounts at "VOA" or vandalism only accounts. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

People can and do reform... but are they going to reform within the time period of a standard block? Will they reform even in the time period of one of the harsher 1 week or 1 month blocks? A blatant and obnoxious vandal should get blocked quickly in order to convey some sort of recognition of their behavior. Strictly abiding by a 1-2-3-4 warning system is like waiting for the other shoe to drop, then drop again and finally drop a fourth time, and only conveys to the vandal that some of the most repulsive kinds of vandalism are tolerated not just once but four times on WP. Geeman 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[ecx3]The "one edit and they're gone" example I gave was someone vandalizing an admin's talk page. No assumption of good faith when a new account's first edit is to replace everything with "So-and-so is a cocksucker!". (I could probably pull up some diffs for the exact scenarios I've done this in, if you'd like)
I'm also no suggesting we get crazy-long with IP blocks, just that we get a lot more reactionary to them. I'm fine with locking down an IP for 24 hours after a single blatantly vandalism edit. I've seen IPs that had lengthy block logs, and some of the blocks were for six months (and in comparing the blocks to the edits, it was obvious that they came right back and picked up where they left off). While I'm willing to believe that change is possible, I'm quite comfortable responding to the evidence before me, rather than the hope that the person will grow up anytime soon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to keep in mind that blatant vandalism does not mean a returning vandal, or a vandal with the intent to destory this project. Admit it, the wiki concept is a little confusing. I would not expect my changes to show up and would expirement with some crazy stuff if I did not know what I was doing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we indefinitely block a person who posts "hi susan!" on an article, or adds "italic text" somewhere to an article... yes, those people are very obviously testing it out, and they should be lightly warned. But someone changing Darth Vader's position to "a big black nigga" and their species to "negroid"?[8] No. Hell no. Not useful, they can go somewhere else to get their jollies. If I just scared away someone who had a little bit of potential to grow the hell up and become productive, oh well, we can all have a big cry over the loss, and then go back to improving the encyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a userbox that says it all:

This user advocates immediate and permanent banning for bigoted, racist, and homophobic edits.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by E. Sn0 =31337= (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

 E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this might sound a crazy idea, but if vandals are using a certain IP, the only thing blocking that IP does is make whoever is on it go through the {{unblock}} process. It's not like there aren't enough administrators hanging about to answer the requests quickly, and if it is a school IP, office IP, etc., maybe some people using the IP will get annoyed enough at the vandals to do something about it on their end. Blocks (even hardblocks and indef blocks) can easily be lifted, an it seems only fair that the organisations that own the IPs should do some "policing" on their end. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's absolutely no reason a teacher should just be letting his students edit Wikipedia without supervision. I actually talked to one vandal who was editing while in in-school suspension. Your tax dollars at work. That's why the school block tag I use tells teachers and administrators to keep an eye on their damn students. Kafziel ^Talk 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that we are warned not to block schools or colleges for long periods. I question this. Is there anyone out there who has actually noticed, amidst the crop of vandal edits which we get from educational establishments, any worthwhile or sensible edits at all? Because I have not, and I have been looking. If schools/colleges can only produce vandal edits (and it seems to me that schools which do so produce nothing else) then why should we not just block them to the end of the school year? Clearly, we should give the next year's crop of students a clean start. But why not just do a {{schoolblock}} until next year and forget about the place until then?--Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To know that, you'd need to "whois" every IP who makes a good edit :). Schools might have editing WP (or another wikimedia project) as part of their assignments, so we should never just "block until next year", unless it's on the understanding that if they request unblocking for the purpose of constructive editing, admins will promptly comply. To me, that seems a lot more sensible than making 1,000 3 hour blocks, and it may help bring the attentions of overworked and underpaid teachers to help us a bit. If the kids need access, then a teacher or librarian can request unblock to allow account creations, and if it turns out that vandal accounts are created, just disallow account creations and anon edits until there's another (hopefully and presumably good faith) request for unblock again. The short blocks just mean more work for admins and more frustration among the vandalism patrollers, neither of which are particularly productive things for the health of the encyclopedia. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But my whole point is that from schools/colleges who produce vandalism edits we DO NOT GET good edits. As far as I can see, not ever. I know we should, but we don't. I would certainly agree to an immediate unblock at the request of a person of authority within the school. Otherwise, you appear to be agreeing with me that short, as opposed to long blocks are of no value, and that we should think about applying blocks to the end of the academic year as a routine measure, in the case of on-going vandalism. Yes?--Anthony.bradbury 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an intermediate approach (1) There is need for only one set of warnings, no need for a set of warnings between every block. (2) Block lengths should increase relatively rapidly (none of this business of seven 24-hour blocks in a row), (3) shared IP addresses that have blatant vandalism can be soft-blocked. That is, if a school harbors a blatant vandal, it's reasonable to require everyone to get an account if they want to edit; but (4) with all this said, I'd oppose a policy of abolishing IP editing and requiring everyone to get an account. Legit IP editors should be permitted. Tighten up on vandalism where it occurs, but only where it occurs. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that block lengths go

• 24 hours
• 48 hours
• 1 week
• 1 month
• 6 months
• Indef

In that exact order. Funpika 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, an IP should never be blocked indefinitely. —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can go with that.--Anthony.bradbury 20:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But how many steps is that? That is six different blocks to eventually indefinitely block a vandal. I believe that is a bit too long of a process. I would personally skip the 28 hour, and 6 months steps. How about

24 hours

1 weeks

1 month

Indef

If someone doesn't stop after a month block, they are probably never going to stop. Jmlk17 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would go with 31hrs, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months. IP's shouldn't be blocked for longer than that - even a static IP won't necessarily be with the same person in 6 month's time. If they come back after the 6 month block, simply block them for another 6 months (after some warnings and probably a 31 hour block, just in case it's a different person) - it's not a large amount of work. --Tango 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A specific example, User:209.158.113.140 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was just reported and ignored due to: no edits in almost an hour ( diff ). This user has been blocked 4 times since 2005 and warned multiple times every month in 2007. I've sampled contributions all the way back to 2005 and found literally 0 good faith edits beyond occasional self-reversion. I'm concerned about the recent activity requirement being overly strict. My inclination is at least a 6mo. anon-only block. See also: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks; Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses ∴ here…♠ 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLOCK. Blocking is not punitive, it is to stop immediate damage to this project. The user stopped editing an hour ago. Blocking that would have been a retroactive block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's about time blocking became punitive, then. wikipediatrix 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If a user's every edit over two years has been disruptive and causes problems for contributing editors, how is blocking not in the best interest of the project? This decision gives that vandal carte blanche to vandalize an article or two daily, and the vandal won't be blocked because it'll be "retroactive."The Dark 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't get the current permissiveness at all. If I ran the zoo, if someone made multiple edits like blanking articles, typing nonsense or idiotic comments like "BOB IS A TURD!!! HAHAHAHAH!!!!" or "L. RON HUBBARD IS GAY" or "STEVE WUZ HERE", I would lose no sleep at night over permabanning them instead of merely blocking them a zillion times in many gradual steps. I can't think of any sensible reason why anyone would even say "aw, let's give them a fourth chance". wikipediatrix 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLOCK (to which I also referred!), this user engages in persistent vandalism;, as is clear from the history and talk page. I see nothing at WP:BLOCK about a 1 hour delay being a good reason to ignore a persistent vandal. ∴ here…♠ 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing from the history proving it is the same person? If they were all edits to the same article, that is a different story. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not overly concerned with this user, but it serves well as an example to this discussion. Thanks for your response, this clarifies who I should be reporting here. ∴ here…♠ 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a case where a long-term soft block (blocking anons only, allowing account creation) may be a reasonable solution. — Scientizzle 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Hi folks. This morning I noticed that User:Treasureisland4067 vandalised the St Edmund Hall, Oxford article so I reverted the page and left a warning on his/her user talk page using one of the lower-level templates from WP:CUV. A couple of hours later, the user blanked their talk page and removed the warning. Now I know WP is somewhat touchy about blanking talk pages (even user ones) and prefers archiving instead and I'm concerned that the user in question is attempting to gloss over their vandalism. Should I take any further action (i.e. restore the warning and/or add another warning about page-blanking) or should I escalate this to an admin or should I just let it slide for now? Thanks AulaTPN 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If an editor blanks warnings, it's not a big deal. I warned Treasureisland4067 (talk · contribs) for other vandalism & restored your previous one for posterity. As it is, since every warning is available through the history, it's not necessary to restore blanked warnings. You certainly shouldn't add additional warnings for this kind of thing...In the case of this editor, any future acts of vandalism should receive a level 3 or 4 warning, with a possible vandal-only account block after that. If this editor does not perform any more vandalism (and possibly even becomes a productive editor), there's no need to keep a scarlet letter on the editor's user talk. — Scientizzle 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, that's what I'd hoped. Thanks for your help! AulaTPN 07:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template series for warning against creating nonsense articles.

Is there a series of templates for patent-nonsense articles? Realpp48 has created — and re-created — multiple patent nonsense articles.

Are warnings available for this sort of vandalism? --Aarktica 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-create}}, {{Nonsensepages}}, {{uw-create2}}, {{uw-create3}}, {{uw-create4}}. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for more options, too. — Scientizzle 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you very much. Aarktica 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User reported: NE2

I reported a user for blocking.[9] Why wasn't any action taken on him? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Another user removed him because it appeared to be over a content dispute, not vandalism. AIV is for reporting vandals, not simply for users you feel are difficult. (And being bold is one of our guiding principles; "insubordination" is not a valid reason to block.) Krimpet (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you report users?

I have warned a user that has been warned multiple times because he/she were makingtons of nonsense edits but I don't know how to report them their user name is User:Tedgxke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scti (talk • contribs)

There are instructions for reporting on the main page. It is quite easy. This user was indefinitely blocked on May 2, so there is no need to report him. Rettetast 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving too fast for manual edits

I spent a minute writing in my entry and also fixed another entry. By the time I put it in there had been a change; I had two more conflicts before I was able to shoehorn mine in (I imagine the other one, about a vandal at Morning glory, has been taken care of. What tool should I use to prevent this from happening? --Edwin Herdman 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing ;) There are always going to be edit conflicts at certain time of the day. The two tools/scripters I know are Twinkle and VandalProof, both have functions for speedier reporting. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See the Guide to AIV where it mentions using the + button. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, guys. Stephen: Mavis Beacon wasn't fun back in 1995 and while Mario Teaches Typing was fun in 1994 it isn't now...so I have a feeling that MBTT is going to be even worse today :D Unless they've updated it...anyway, I think the + solves my problem, thanks! --Edwin Herdman 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I use VandalProof, and I still sometimes get hit with edit conflicts. Jmlk17 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding an emergency page protection section

Since this page is very often attended by Administrators, and sometimes there are pages that needs to be protected from vandalism immideately, I wonder if we could add an emergency page protection section here as well to deal with immediate and repeated vandalism of one page. Anyone like to comment on this? --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the FRPP message board is sufficiently attended and see no reason to duplicate functionality. --Selket ^Talk 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:RFPP is not attended as often as this, so pages could go on unprotected for 30 minutes and it could get vandalised really badly before an admin jumps in to protect the page (which would waste time for rc patrollers as well since there are vandals who just quickly jumps to another proxy or changes his/her ip to vandalise again). I just don't think WP:RFPP is suitable for emergency page protections. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, as the name implies, this section should be only used for pages that receives immediate on-going vandalism by a range ip or proxy. Not used for pages that receives vandalism from different ip's from different users over a long period of time. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism still continues at Regina Neighbourhoods

Could someone please deal with user: Mumun 無文as he continues to vandalize the Regina Neighbourhoods page, specifically North Central. Help would be greatly appreciated.--207.81.56.49 00:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked for edit warring. – Steel 00:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not a block-candidate?

I recently submitted this report:

76.19.153.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ongoing vandalism, 14 since last warning of block. I couldn't find a single non-vandalism edit by this IP. -- Adrian Lozano 12:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

which swiftly was removed by MaxSem (talk · contribs) with the following comment:

rm 76.19.153.237 - hasn't vandalised for a dosen hours. list empty

In what way was this user not "active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning"? Furthermore, what list is it that is supposed to be empty? Should I rather have reported the vandal in another forum? I'm a bit confused right now. -- Adrian Lozano 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Because blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, only users that vandalise right here and now are blocked. This user hasn't edited since yesterday. And last warning issued to him was on 17 May, and was only level 2, whereas people should be blocked after vandalising past level 4 warnings. There is no point in blocking him/her now, because s/he is not vandalising. MaxSem 13:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you answer. Basically that means that I (or anyone else) must wait for the next vandalism, if or when that happens, and report it within 12 hrs? I suppose a new warning on that user's talk page is in order then. -- Adrian Lozano 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And list empty refers to whether there's anything left listed on AIV, so admins can see it in their watchlist and know if they need to look at anything. Trebor 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that 12 hours later there could be a different human attached to the IP. ^(H) 13:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A problem i can't fix

A user recently left this message on my talk page:

Hallo. I have got a huge problem. Someone has redirected my user talk page to another page. It is a user called User:Efstyle10 who has done this, and this user also edits under the name User talk:84.9.15.240. Please revert all the odd edits they have done to my talkpage, and stop them from doing this. Thankyou, in advance Breakfast100 12:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

This is definately not the first time this user has graffitied, but it is the first time they have done it while ligged in Breakfast100 12:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This user probably contacted me because I have recently reverted some vandalism by User talk:84.9.15.240. I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure how I can go about fixing this user's problems. Can anyone help? Thanks. - 52 Pickup 14:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I'm pretty new to this managerial side of Wikipedia. - 52 Pickup 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

172.xxx vandal

I know we must go to test4 before filing a request to block a user, but can we make this case an exception and to file a report after the 1st or 2nd instance of vandalism from him since he has been doing long-term abuse (since at least February perhaps much earlier) to Canadian (or I should non-Conservative Party) articles on politics with multiple sock IPs (I can count probably well in excess of over 100 to 200 IP addresses doing similar vandalism.--JForget 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He's probably been blocked over a hundred times. As far as I'm concerned these can be insta-blocked, though you will usually find a new IP will arrive within seconds. They, again, will probably not even need warning... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that the abuse is coming from the AOL Headquarters in Dulles, VA itself based on the IP info, thus means that he/she reside in Canada before and now living in the US. 16 000 employees which probably explains the multiple IPs - 16 000 possible IPs he could use and this may be a call centre? (172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255). Hope the management there will be aware soon, maybe he will be forced to stop or may get the boot from AOL. Did anyone contacted the head offices about the matter by chance?--JForget 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think all AOL addresses between 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 only appear to come from the headquarters, and this is probably not so useful to know (see [10]). However it is curious that each IP is 'clean' having never edited Wikipedia before. Then again there are so many IPs it's not really surprising. That said, see also: User:aolworker, AFAIK his only ever account, which I think is a coincidence. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely suspicious since the 172.xxx has vandalized multiple times, although, I think he is using it as a Sandbox.--JForget 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested convention for handling AIV requests

I suggest that admins add a note indicating when they are researching a AIV complaint. I started doing this after doing research and go to block an editor, only to find that somebody else beat me to it. My guess is that we have all had this experience once in a while.

What I have been doing is to paste the following string into AIV immediately after a request:

:* Researching complaint against [[User:USER]] -- ~~~~

I then copy & paste the username or IP Address to replace the string "USER". I will then copy and paste the string into the edit summary and hit save. This tells other admins that I am working on that entry, and hopefully they will work on a different one.

When I'm done researching, if I block the user, I'm done because the bots clear the AIV entry. However, if my decision is not to block, then I enter a note to the AIV request, and also use it for the edit summary. A common one is:

:* No vandalism by [[User:USER]] after final warning -- ~~~~

I then copy and paste the following on the talk page of the person who made the request:

{{subst:uw-aiv|USER|MESSAGE}} -- ~~~~

I paste the username/IP address to replace "USER", and paste the message I added to AIV to replace the string "MESSAGE". I may add some additional comments and suggestions on steps they may wish to take.

I then go back and delete the entry from AIV. The edit history of AIV records what happened, and the note on the talk page allows the person who reported understand why the block didn't happen. I will often include suggestions, such as reporting the incident to WP:SSP if they claimed the vandal was a sock puppet.

Any thoughts on this? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Entries on the board often need split-second decision-making. If you need to think about it, then obviously it doesn't belong on the board. —Kurykh 05:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of newly arrived suspected sockpuppets it makes sense for an admin to research a little before acting, in which case I've seen notes like that are helpful. --Fire Star 火星 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a different matter, generally speaking. Most of the reports here are anons vandalizing, which requires checking, at most, the last three or four edits. For more complicated issues, yes, notes should be left, but those situations are rare. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Just check and block or check and remove. We don't need to add an extra layer to the process. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

School blocks

Can someone please explain to me why school-owned IP address get blocked for six months rather than the usual 24 hours? I've been only blocking schools for 2 hours, because by then the students who were causing the problems would have gone off to another class. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the case. The duration of blocks should be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. So if a school IP has been blocked several times previously, it would be better if it is blocked for such long periods of time. But usually school IPs are blocked for shorter times in their first blocks. —Anas ^talk? 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I will block a school IP for up to six months if it has many prior blocks for vandalism. Though its likely that each block may be the result of a different student who may never repeat, a history of vandalism and blocks indicates that the school is probably giving students unsupervised access to computers and/or is unable to control inappropriate student editing of Wikipedia in some way. Blocking these IP addresses for longer periods protects Wikipedia from a significant source of vandalism, and if the block is anon-only, it will cause little harm. Students wishing to edit constructively may still do so. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I typically go straight to 6 months when there's a history of vandalism on many dates. In some cases, I go even longer. Even with a very limited history, I will often block for as much as a month. If you look at the type of vandalism these accounts create, you'll notice a lot of it is of the form "Jeff W. is gay" and such... which to me suggests a culture of vandalism that should be stamped out by long blocks. Plus, in most instances there are no constructive edits at all from these IPs, so I don't think it's a big loss. Mangojuice^talk 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I will typically block only if there has been an appropriate escalation of blocks, or even a previous 6 month block that may have expired recently. I never block for 6 months for the first or 2nd block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Schools are usually soft blocked when the block is long, meaning the student can create an account at home or the local library and then use it at school. It is not that we are singling out schools, more we are singling out terminals with static IPs that are accessible to a large group of people. ^(H) 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The deciding factor for me is history. If the school is mostly sending us good contribs, and the vandalism is the exception, then a short block avoids collateral damage. Longer blocks may be more appropriate in different situations. When a school has nothing but vandalism, and numerous blocks in its history, it seems like a waste of effort to block it for a few hours, every day or two. We can use all the tools available to us -- allowing account creation enables people to edit, but keeps the "just curious" vandals out. Unblock-en-l can help get people connected with accounts. Any block on a shared IP will have collateral, but sometimes the cost of effort going into cleaning up after a school is higher than the usual. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User contributions malfunction

Please add new comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User contributions not appearing to prevent having many threads about the same problem around. By the way, this problem has been solved. Thank you. --

Bug ID 9213

Bug ID 9213 --VectorPotential^Talk 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... what about it? // DecaimientoPoético 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just that about 99% of vandalism patrollers report anons here with the messages "Vandalism past final warning" when anons haven't been able to see these warnings since some time in December--VectorPotential^Talk 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them see the new messages bar all the time, some none of the time. I spent a while testing it with my IP a week ago and found that when I left and came back, I would get the new messages bar.

Anyway, what are you suggesting should change at AIV? I also find the situation somewhat uncomfortable, but I don't have any solution to it. CMummert · talk 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I also noticed this. The "orange messages bar" never show up as an IP for me and I also tested it at school and the messages don't work. Really wish that a developer or someone with access to the code for Wiki can look at it and fix it. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I happened to leave a message for the IP at my school, today, and it was working fine with the orange box. Spotty coverage, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it works differently for sharedips, where the new messages bar is more prone to stay on for long periods of time, than it is to remain off--VectorPotential^Talk 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Without the messages, most IPs never see the warnings or that they are going to be blocked. Unfortunately, a solution still doesn't exist Bugzilla (Bug ID 9213). I know that the messages bar isn't working because when I see people vandalizing on a computer at school or in a library, I send a warning but it never shows up. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted a partial solution at MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, however that's nowhere near as obvious as a bright yellow bar appearing at the top of your screen--VectorPotential^Talk 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's better than nothing but it still doesn't get the warning out to IPs. I also noticed many editors at [{WP:AIV|AIV]] making reports as (not listening to warnings) suggesting that they don't know about the bug with the messaging bar. The problem is still ongoing and many messages such as welcomes or suggestions in addition to warnings are not being received. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I just don't see the developers pulling off a complete fix, this may just be something we have to live with for the long run, seeing as how the cause is still unknown--VectorPotential^Talk 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why developers are having such a hard time fixing this? Or is it simply just that there is no solution to this problem?-- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a very high priority, since it only affects anons--VectorPotential^Talk 20:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Heres another anon who has the new messages bar not showing: User_talk:71.107.183.141. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I created Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213 for anybody who is frustrated with the inability to communicate with anonymous IPs. Thanks to Scientizzle for suggesting this. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent! — Scientizzle 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Awww...now it's up for deletion. — Scientizzle 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Another IP user seems to have been blocked without the new messages working User_talk:71.113.12.223... Why haven't the devs come up with anything yet?? It is frustrating when you know they are not getting the warnings you are placing on there talk page... -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up on the "Probably not a very high priority, since it only affects anons--VectorPotential": Sorry, I disagree. It affects anyone either is an IP or wants to contact one. And through vandalism, it affects anyone who is affected by vandalism (users, readers, ...) or the project as more vandal fighters likely have to spend more time fighting (rather than working more constructively). If this isn't a major problem, I don't know what would be. Maybe if the user log-in malfuncioned and assigned a random user name to everyone who logs in? ... --Ibn Battuta

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't a major problem, just that it's possible the developers don't consider it urgent, or it's also possible they just don't know what's causing it. To be honest, I was just trying to say something to keep this thread from being claimed by MiszaBot II before its time--VectorPotential^Talk 15:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The bugzilla entry shoiws it as "high" priority, and shows discussion as to the cause among developers, it appears that they aren't sure what is causing this, which makes it hard to fix. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though the vast majority of registered users are still unaware of this bug--VectorPotential^Talk 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User 203.94.188.15

I am confused by the administration practice of blocking an IP address without placing a notice on the talk page that the address has been blocked.

20:12, June 5, 2007 HBC AIV helperbot (Talk | contribs) m (1,557 bytes) (1 IP left. rm 203.94.188.15 (blocked 6 months by Luna_Santin (AO ACB)). 1 comment(s) removed.)

user talk page User_talk:203.94.188.15

Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a requirement to do so, it's a courtesy. At any rate, it appears that the admin in question normally places the Talk page messages, so I assume it was an oversight. --Spike Wilbury 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: the courtesy is not just to the user being blocked but also to the users reporting the problem so that they are aware the the issue was handled and for what time period. Otherwise is just a big guessing game. One might think that the warnings worked but in reality there was a block in place which in the case of this user started vandalizing again within hours of the 4 month block expiring. Without the notice about the block one would assume that the user had been on good behavior for the last 4 months rather than being locked out. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's a good idea to check the block log before taking any action. :)

Please also note that blocked users can edit their own talk page and could (and many do) remove any and all warnings. Those would obviously still show up in the history; a lot of people aren't in the habit of checking that before warning users though. In any case, checking the blog log is easier, quicker and gives you an idea about the accounts/IPs history. -- Seed 2.0 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages for shared IPs are notorious for being blanked, vandalized, edit warred over, suspiciously altered, and generally probably shouldn't be considered a reliable record for anything much. Block logs, however, can't be edited and are just as easy (if not even easier) to check at a glance -- I personally tend to check both. The users on the other side of the IP address won't think to check their talk page, when they're blocked, because chances are pretty good they have no idea what a user talk page is, or that they have one, until they see MediaWiki:Blockedtext, which will do a better job explaining the block to them, in any case. Likewise, you seem to be perfectly aware of this block without my having left a message about it (otherwise, how could you have started this thread?). This has come up a number of times, at the talk pages of several admins and even the admin noticeboards, but as far as I can tell, it's always ended with "agreeing to disagree" -- you might say I'm being rude for failing to leave messages, where I might say you're being unreasonable for insisting I expend several pageloads per vandal trying to replace block logs with talk pages. Who's right? I haven't a clue. But to my knowledge, there isn't and hasn't been a clear-cut community consensus on this issue, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am afraid that you read way too much into my post so will requote the first entry:

I am confused by the administration practice of blocking an IP address without placing a notice on the talk page that the address has been blocked.

Nothing said about being rude or even against the policy, just that "I am confused" Thanks for clearing up the confusion. The only reason why I knew about the block was I had this page on my watchlist after posting the problem about this user. Had it been posted by someone else I would not have known. I can and do understand your reason now since they have been stated and have no problems with them.

Just keep in mind that new editors tring to help with the vandalism problem do get confused. Even your reference to MediaWiki:Blockedtext makes little sense if one does not know something about template coding

You have been blocked from editing.

$7 (an account, IP address or range of addresses) was blocked by $1 for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

$2

Your IP address is $3, and your block has been set to expire: $6.

By the way, I have gained enough understanding of such coding so there is no need to try to explain it. Just trying to help you know why I was asking. Also please note the following quoted from Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol

The blocking administrator will usually leave this on the vandal's talk page:

really should be explained better, footnoted or something as it is the beginning point for new editors like myself. I will probably edit that page myself in the near future adding the comment about unregistered user talk pages. Anyway this reply has gone on long enought and I considered the subject closed and am removing this page from my watch list so any reply will not be seen unless it is referenced on my talk page which does bring up a separate issue, Why is it impossible to add a talk page to the watch list without adding the article page itself. The prime example is this talk page when added also adds the article page which is a VERY active page making using the watchlist very difficult to use. But that is a separate subject that does not belong here. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. To tell the truth, the response is largely based on ones I've given previously, the few times it's come up at my talk page. ;) I should see if I can maybe inquire about some sort of "talk only" watchlist entry, with the devs. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:StealBoy and his aliases

StealBoy (talk · contribs) has recently been banned for repeatedly making spurious entries and links. There is pettern of similar changes made bythe same editor using a range of IP addresses (see Articles for deletion/The Clinger Winker and my comment to User talk:EdJogg for further details}. It nows seems that UnblockBoy (talk · contribs) is now continuing the same pattern of vandalism... Is there anything that administrators can be done to help put a stop to this? Regards, Lynbarn 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that should be UnBlockBoy (talk · contribs). I've blocked UnBlockBoy indefinitely. —tregoweth (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

from project page

86.148.55.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Repeated vandalism of Green Goblin; has continued after warnings.--CyberGhostface 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A level4im warning was issued for this, way too strict/Assuming bad faith. It's more likely it's childish grafitti or a test. Evilclown93_(talk) 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP deliberately vandalized the article two times already, three if you count a similar edit by another IP. He also added "Adam Smith (aka pot noodle head, bombay badboy, smeeeethy) the kids fucked after one can! lolol" after I reverted his edits and gave him the warning. Its not like someone adding a "tttt" to the bottom of the page, its deliberate vandalism. There's assuming bad faith and then there's common sense. I'm not going to put on kid gloves and go "Welcome to wikipedia!" to someone who deliberately vandalizes an encyclopedia.--CyberGhostface 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I also feel uncomfortable with blocking. In my views, 4im is for the worst cases of vandalism. A level 2 or 3 warning would have been more suited in my opinion. If it strikes again, a level4 would than be warranted. The second vandalism is not after, the user didn't have the time to see your warning before striking again. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get why we're so lenient on vandals. When I was trying to convince my dad that all the horror stories about how Wikipedia can't be trusted are false, and that vandals are reverted, he wanted to know if they're banned outright. I told him they're given a series of warnings before being punished, which he thought was ridicilous. I mean I've had overzealous admins block me because of not properly labeling images, and this guy is saying "the kids fuced after one can! lolol!" and I'm accused of having bad faith for requesting he get punished.--CyberGhostface 20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can try to change the policy, but AIV isn't the correct place to do so. --Evilclown93_(talk) 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Where should I go then? (I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know where these are discussed)--CyberGhostface 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Think of it this way: when I started out, I participated in an AfD discussion as an IP user. If somebody had reverted this and blocked me as a meatpuppet, do you think I'd stick around? Do you think I'd stay long enough to become an admin? Do you think I'd stick around long enough to revert tens of thousands of vandal edits? I've seen test1 convert total jackasses into good users, once they realize there are real people cleaning up after them. There are cases where we can and should block on sight, but they're ultimately pretty rare. Just my take. We should probably move this to talk, if it gets much longer. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, I guess I'll drop it. He hasn't vandalized after I reported him so I guess I'll let it go. Sorry for overreacting.--CyberGhostface 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I sympathize with your frustration. I do think there are times when we're too harsh, but there's also plenty of times when we assume a little too much good faith. As long as we have the countless supply of users we do, it's not likely the disparity will ever be entirely resolved, but we can always try to keep even-handed, as individuals. If you did want to go for change, I suppose the village pump or vandalism policy page might be good places -- or, just stay involved with the project, make your mark, and bring about change through your interactions with other users. A lot of blocking policy and such are determined by "general practice," which of course we can all change over time. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

warning template

Is there a warning template against putting yourself into notable people from... sections on various place articles?

I suspect an IP editor 81.96.71.55 is doing this for self-promotion reasons (search Google for Steve Oliver the pod, then see cached wikipedia article, now deleted) or [11]. Regards, Lynbarn 12:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I peeked at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and think you might want to try {{subst:uw-ad1}} or some higher level if the guy escalates. Good luck! --KNHaw ^(talk) 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks - that seemed to work! Lynbarn 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts

I'm having enormous problems reporting users because there are constant edit conflicts, as others add information. Is there any way of getting around this? I have just taken 3 or 4 attempts to add a single report to the page because of them. I think it really needs to be sorted out, and is it an indication of the high levels of vandalism that edit conflicts are now, in my expedrience, the rule when attempting to report people?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Try Twinkle. Before it, I always got edit conflicted, but since I've started using it, I've never, and I mean never, been edit-conflicted. Cheers! --Evilclown93_(talk) 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. —Anas ^talk? 11:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Use the edit new section button (the plus symbol at the top), leaving the header section empty. That will stop the conflicts - I am assuming that is essentially what twinkle does.

Viridae^Talk 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Or you can copy the new text into your clipboard (assuming Windows here) just before saving the edit, and if an edit conflict occurs, just copy it right back and save. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynbarn (talk • contribs)

Edit conflict already shows your edits in a second textbox further down the page. Just copy them from there into the first textbox and save. Plus using section editing reduces the surface area of the edits, reducing chances of conflicts. --soum ^talk 12:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection Levels

I'm curious about something. We have protection to prevent non-accounts from editing. I 'think' we have protection to prevent 'new' accounts from editing. What about protection to prevent anyone with less than x=(500?) mainspace edits from editing?

It seems that something along this line would protect 'established' or 'targeted' articles from being edited by anyone other than a serious editor. And if someone 'new' really wanted to edit one of those articles, they only need to 'go forth and edit' in mainspace for a week or so (probably not something a vandal would be willing to do, simply to be caught in his first vandalism and have to start over). Peace.Lsi john 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is Semi-protection which mean that anonymous users cannot edit the page or user accounts which are not older than four days old and their is full protection which unless in extreme circumstances is used for disputes, this means that if a page is fully protected only users who are administrators can edit them and all changes are discussed on the article talk pae before changes, a page can only be protected if it abides by the protection policy, requesting pages be protected can be made at RFP, hope this answers your queries. The Sunshine Man 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting a possible 'new' level which required, perhaps, 1 month, or 500 edits in order to edit the page. This would add a bit more work to setting up accounts in order to vandalize pages, in cases of persistent vandals like this one.

That's an interesting thought, I've seen a few situations where it might be useful. If it were implemented, I'd be very concerned about over-use, and would probably favor limiting the number of users who can apply it (perhaps to bcrats only, arbcom only, or some other thing akin to oversight). Could submit to bugzilla or the village pump, see what turns up. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like this concept, although clearly details need to be worked out. Quite obviously it would virtually eradicate single-edit vandalism accounts and instant-account !votes in WP:RfA and in WP:AfD, and would markedly reduce the sockpuppetry problem.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Luna Santin - by requiring a bcrat-like system, the number of pages that would be protected in this style would be limited, and the process for protection could be scrutinised to a greater degree - presumably consensus would have to be reached to protect in the new level? ck lostsword•T•C 10:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about this one though, although yes it could be useful for some articles but it would prevent some possible good intentioned users from editing. The Sunshine Man 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps would only be necessary for administrative pages - Anthony.bradbury suggested above that it be used for RfA and AfD? (Although that would require some redefinition of the processes - 'only users with at least 500 or 1 month's edits are allow to !vote?) ck lostsword•T•C 11:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of protection of any sort on AfD and RfA would be a major change in process. Currently, we only semiprotect pages, including RfAs and AfDs, when there is vandalism (not meatpuppetry or unhelpful participation), and it should stay that way. Mangojuice^talk 17:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As another thought, the impending changes from stable versions (where the page displays not the most recent version, but a previously flagged version) may render this somewhat moot, depending on how it's all implemented. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

IP Adresses

Quick question: Can I report IP Addresses as persistent vandals? I'm not sure. And also is it possible to block them? Geosultan4 03:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes they can get blocked, and yes you can report them here. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 03:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Geosultan4 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember, however, that one IP address does not always map to one distinct user. In some cases, entire libraries, computer labs, universities, or even entire countries are largely represented by one widely shared address -- in such cases, we should be careful to weigh the pros and cons of various solutions to problems. On the other hand, some IPs are dynamic, shifting each time the user connects to the internet. There's a good deal of limbo in dealing with IPs, that's different from usernames. Sometimes IPs can be dealt with quite heavily, other times they may seem to get only a slap on the wrist. When in doubt, you can always report it to get an admin to have a look, though. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Happened like that on my end: my university's IP was blocked for 6 months due to vandals hanging out in the library! Jmlk17 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad Reports

I'm just curious, how is one supposed to go about it when a user makes a bad report? Not in the sense that the user they reported does not need to be blocked, but they don't follow the guidelines given on how to report. I've seen many reports where it is just a vandal's username or IP, and it not even commented on, signed, etc. Maybe I'm just a stickler for "paperwork", or what is to be done? Jmlk17 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a polite note on their talk page hopefully would fix it. After that... well, I'd hate to block someone for repeatedly making malformed reports, but it is disruptive... let's just stick with firm-yet-friendly notes. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I wasn't implying we should block someone for malformed reporting :). I was just curious of the other issue of if we should A. correct the report or B. just go ahead and research/block as needed the offending vandal being report? Jmlk17 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't obvious vandalism they shouldn't be here, so research shouldn't be needed. Normally I just remove them with a note in the edit summary as to why. If someone is persistently adding bad reports (unwarned, under warned etc) I leave them a note on their talk page. Viridae^Talk 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Jmlk17 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon Kennedy

I left the following on the project page, but evidently it is not formatted correctly, and as a result it seems to have been cleared by a bot without any resolution. Please can someone take a look and advise? Do I need to leave IPvandal templates for each of these IP addresses?

Jon Kennedy

IP user making repeated defamatory edits about musician Jon Kennedy. Seems to be a vendetta, and a number of articles that mention the artist's name have been vandalised claiming the artist is racist amongst other things. The fact that all of the vandalism is in the same vein suggests it is a single user, although several IP addresses are used.

2 periods of Protection (17th May and 6th July) on the artist article, and a temp blocking on one of the IP addresses have failed to put a stop to the vandalism. The user has received several warnings, including a full set on the talk page of the IP that was temp blocked.

Here's a quick overview of the vandalism activity with this sentiment. Some are related to the artist, others appear to be random pages.

• Jon Kennedy by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.129.142.202 (4th May), 86.153.142.101 (7th May), 86.129.134.78 (9th May), 86.129.142.128 (28th June), 86.151.44.168 (29th June), 86.149.161.127 (3rd July), 86.157.119.70 (3rd July), 86.142.29.155 (5th July), 81.152.202.49 (6th July), 86.157.118.219 (6th July), 86.129.130.74 (10th July), 86.129.139.82 (16th July), 86.129.147.220 (17th July)
• Talk:Jon Kennedy by 86.129.145.2 (8th July), and claim of innoncence by 86.157.119.65 (8th July), 86.149.160.166 (13th July)
• John Kennedy (disambiguation) by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
• Category:Jon Kennedy albums by 81.158.55.56 (13th April)
• John Kennedy (disc jockey) by 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th & 30th April)

• Grand Central Records by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.130.45 (11th May), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
• Grand Central Translation by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
• Grand Central Vol. 2 by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
• Grand Central Vol. 3 by 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
• Kava Kava by 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.142.128 (28th June), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
• One Offs... Remixes & B-Sides by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
• Take My Drum to England by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
• Tru Thoughts by 81.158.55.56 (13th April)
• Useless Wooden Toys by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.157.119.65 (8th July)
• We're Just Waiting for You Now by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April)

• Racism by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)

• Altona, Manitoba by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
• Leiosauridae by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
• Ryde Pier Head railway station by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)

• Comments on Wikipedia:Editor review/Magnus animum2 (since removed) by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
• User talk:Lights by 86.153.142.101 (7th May)
• User talk:SJP by 86.129.142.128 (28th June)

See also:

• User talk:86.153.142.101
• User talk:86.129.142.128

Other articles vandalised by these IPs include: Ross Errilly Friary, Bernard Manning , Jim Davidson

When I initially reported this asking for the artist article to be protected, I was not aware of the extent of the vandalism. Can a range of IPs be blocked, or a multiple related articles be protected? If not, is there another strategy to stop this nonsense? Gram123 13:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the list of the different IPs used so far, in order:

• 81.152.202.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.158.55.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.124.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.130.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.130.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.134.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.135.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.139.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.142.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.142.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.145.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.147.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.142.29.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.143.159.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.149.160.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.149.161.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.151.44.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.153.142.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.157.118.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.157.119.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.157.119.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Cheers. Gram123 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in detailing this problem. As for blocking the range of IPs, I think that is not feasible because the range belongs to a major UK ISP and the IP addresses are likely rotated among multiple users. I have semi-protected the Jon Kennedy article, which has been the main target of the vandalism. For the remaining articles, the level of vandalism is relatively low, and I will watchlist them and revert when necessary. Hopefully others can help out by watchlisting those articles too. If the problem persists, a report at Wikipedia:Long term abuse may help (maybe it's even worth doing now). --Ed (Edgar181) 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have several of these articles on my watchlist too, and if I see further vandalism, I will check the edit history of the user, though of course there are only a few edits under each different IP. I've added yesterday's vandalism to the list above, and will continue to do so. Cheers. Gram123 10:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bug ID 9213

Bug ID 9213 --VectorPotential^Talk 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... what about it? // DecaimientoPoético 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just that about 99% of vandalism patrollers report anons here with the messages "Vandalism past final warning" when anons haven't been able to see these warnings since some time in December--VectorPotential^Talk 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them see the new messages bar all the time, some none of the time. I spent a while testing it with my IP a week ago and found that when I left and came back, I would get the new messages bar.

Anyway, what are you suggesting should change at AIV? I also find the situation somewhat uncomfortable, but I don't have any solution to it. CMummert · talk 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I also noticed this. The "orange messages bar" never show up as an IP for me and I also tested it at school and the messages don't work. Really wish that a developer or someone with access to the code for Wiki can look at it and fix it. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I happened to leave a message for the IP at my school, today, and it was working fine with the orange box. Spotty coverage, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it works differently for sharedips, where the new messages bar is more prone to stay on for long periods of time, than it is to remain off--VectorPotential^Talk 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Without the messages, most IPs never see the warnings or that they are going to be blocked. Unfortunately, a solution still doesn't exist Bugzilla (Bug ID 9213). I know that the messages bar isn't working because when I see people vandalizing on a computer at school or in a library, I send a warning but it never shows up. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted a partial solution at MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, however that's nowhere near as obvious as a bright yellow bar appearing at the top of your screen--VectorPotential^Talk 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's better than nothing but it still doesn't get the warning out to IPs. I also noticed many editors at [{WP:AIV|AIV]] making reports as (not listening to warnings) suggesting that they don't know about the bug with the messaging bar. The problem is still ongoing and many messages such as welcomes or suggestions in addition to warnings are not being received. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I just don't see the developers pulling off a complete fix, this may just be something we have to live with for the long run, seeing as how the cause is still unknown--VectorPotential^Talk 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why developers are having such a hard time fixing this? Or is it simply just that there is no solution to this problem?-- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a very high priority, since it only affects anons--VectorPotential^Talk 20:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Heres another anon who has the new messages bar not showing: User_talk:71.107.183.141. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I created Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213 for anybody who is frustrated with the inability to communicate with anonymous IPs. Thanks to Scientizzle for suggesting this. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent! — Scientizzle 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Awww...now it's up for deletion. — Scientizzle 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Another IP user seems to have been blocked without the new messages working User_talk:71.113.12.223... Why haven't the devs come up with anything yet?? It is frustrating when you know they are not getting the warnings you are placing on there talk page... -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up on the "Probably not a very high priority, since it only affects anons--VectorPotential": Sorry, I disagree. It affects anyone either is an IP or wants to contact one. And through vandalism, it affects anyone who is affected by vandalism (users, readers, ...) or the project as more vandal fighters likely have to spend more time fighting (rather than working more constructively). If this isn't a major problem, I don't know what would be. Maybe if the user log-in malfuncioned and assigned a random user name to everyone who logs in? ... --Ibn Battuta

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't a major problem, just that it's possible the developers don't consider it urgent, or it's also possible they just don't know what's causing it. To be honest, I was just trying to say something to keep this thread from being claimed by MiszaBot II before its time--VectorPotential^Talk 15:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The bugzilla entry shoiws it as "high" priority, and shows discussion as to the cause among developers, it appears that they aren't sure what is causing this, which makes it hard to fix. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though the vast majority of registered users are still unaware of this bug--VectorPotential^Talk 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Eleven strong in the category, though... — Scientizzle 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I made another suggestion at MediaWiki_talk:Anoneditwarning, but it seems unlikely to be approved--VectorPotential^Talk 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would seem, based on the reports that tend to end up here on AIV, that most users either don't know that anons can't receive new messages, or perhaps don't care--VectorPotential^Talk 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This bug may now also be affecting registered users. See here & here. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Any follow up on that?--VectorPotential^Talk 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it might have been an isolated incident, thus not really associated with this bug--VectorPotential^Talk 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bug ID 9213

Bug ID 9213 --VectorPotential^Talk 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... what about it? // DecaimientoPoético 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just that about 99% of vandalism patrollers report anons here with the messages "Vandalism past final warning" when anons haven't been able to see these warnings since some time in December--VectorPotential^Talk 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them see the new messages bar all the time, some none of the time. I spent a while testing it with my IP a week ago and found that when I left and came back, I would get the new messages bar.

Anyway, what are you suggesting should change at AIV? I also find the situation somewhat uncomfortable, but I don't have any solution to it. CMummert · talk 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I also noticed this. The "orange messages bar" never show up as an IP for me and I also tested it at school and the messages don't work. Really wish that a developer or someone with access to the code for Wiki can look at it and fix it. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I happened to leave a message for the IP at my school, today, and it was working fine with the orange box. Spotty coverage, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it works differently for sharedips, where the new messages bar is more prone to stay on for long periods of time, than it is to remain off--VectorPotential^Talk 14:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Without the messages, most IPs never see the warnings or that they are going to be blocked. Unfortunately, a solution still doesn't exist Bugzilla (Bug ID 9213). I know that the messages bar isn't working because when I see people vandalizing on a computer at school or in a library, I send a warning but it never shows up. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted a partial solution at MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, however that's nowhere near as obvious as a bright yellow bar appearing at the top of your screen--VectorPotential^Talk 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's better than nothing but it still doesn't get the warning out to IPs. I also noticed many editors at [{WP:AIV|AIV]] making reports as (not listening to warnings) suggesting that they don't know about the bug with the messaging bar. The problem is still ongoing and many messages such as welcomes or suggestions in addition to warnings are not being received. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I just don't see the developers pulling off a complete fix, this may just be something we have to live with for the long run, seeing as how the cause is still unknown--VectorPotential^Talk 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why developers are having such a hard time fixing this? Or is it simply just that there is no solution to this problem?-- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a very high priority, since it only affects anons--VectorPotential^Talk 20:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Heres another anon who has the new messages bar not showing: User_talk:71.107.183.141. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I created Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213 for anybody who is frustrated with the inability to communicate with anonymous IPs. Thanks to Scientizzle for suggesting this. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent! — Scientizzle 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Awww...now it's up for deletion. — Scientizzle 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Another IP user seems to have been blocked without the new messages working User_talk:71.113.12.223... Why haven't the devs come up with anything yet?? It is frustrating when you know they are not getting the warnings you are placing on there talk page... -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up on the "Probably not a very high priority, since it only affects anons--VectorPotential": Sorry, I disagree. It affects anyone either is an IP or wants to contact one. And through vandalism, it affects anyone who is affected by vandalism (users, readers, ...) or the project as more vandal fighters likely have to spend more time fighting (rather than working more constructively). If this isn't a major problem, I don't know what would be. Maybe if the user log-in malfuncioned and assigned a random user name to everyone who logs in? ... --Ibn Battuta

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't a major problem, just that it's possible the developers don't consider it urgent, or it's also possible they just don't know what's causing it. To be honest, I was just trying to say something to keep this thread from being claimed by MiszaBot II before its time--VectorPotential^Talk 15:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The bugzilla entry shoiws it as "high" priority, and shows discussion as to the cause among developers, it appears that they aren't sure what is causing this, which makes it hard to fix. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though the vast majority of registered users are still unaware of this bug--VectorPotential^Talk 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Eleven strong in the category, though... — Scientizzle 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I made another suggestion at MediaWiki_talk:Anoneditwarning, but it seems unlikely to be approved--VectorPotential^Talk 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would seem, based on the reports that tend to end up here on AIV, that most users either don't know that anons can't receive new messages, or perhaps don't care--VectorPotential^Talk 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This bug may now also be affecting registered users. See here & here. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Any follow up on that?--VectorPotential^Talk 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it might have been an isolated incident, thus not really associated with this bug--VectorPotential^Talk 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

I made a template to notify users if they are reported here. It is located at User:SLSB/AIV and to use it type {{subst:User:SLSB/AIV}}. SLSB talk 22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not like it at all! It's not needed, and too agressive. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've deleted it, we don't tell users they are about to get blocked, it makes the situation worse and they increase their spree in order to do as much damage as possible before being hit with a block. Take a look at WP:DENY, countless templates like this have just recently been deleted at TfD - we don't need another discussion on the matter for this template. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It also increases the likelihood of them vandalising this page. GDonato (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also brought up here at WP:UW two weeks ago, where it was rejected. ^Khukri 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warning Messages

I'm pretty annoyed with the fact that Admins are blocking editors and IPs after only one warning. Aren't editors and IPs only to be blocked after an set of escalating warnings have been issued? If this isn't the case, what is the whole point of having the different levels of "UW" messages? Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 06:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I favor the idea of admins using their best judgement rather than rigid rules. If the vandalism looks like testing, then multiple warnings should obviosly be given. If the vandalism is blatent, and the user is clearly not here to make an encylopaedia, then block sooner. I'll block a user without any warnings if it is clear they are a sockpuppet, and I'll do the same for an IP if it's clearly the same user who has been warned already under a different IP. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Theresa, and I've blocked a few recently who have made one edit and received no warning at all, because it's clear they know what the warnings say. A big issue here is that RC patrollers are issuing level three warnings as a first warning for test edits, or test4im (only) warnings for blanking a page. I've been tempted many times to revert the warning placed by the RC patroller, issue a link to the sandbox in its place, and issue a level 3 AGF warning to the RC patroller. Often I end up issuing a first level warning after an only final warning and most of the time it works. But when you see a final warning on a talk page and a vandal edit past it, what do you do? The whole point of a final warning is surely that it's final. It's just they are frequently not being used properly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll block after 1 warning if it's serious vandalism. Either they saw the message and ignored it or they didn't get the message (see bug above) so blocking just prevents more vandalism. If it's just persistent silliness I'll only block after the full set. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there an essay lying around that we could re-do, or I don't mind starting a new one, as a guide to issuing warnings, assuming good faith, not dishing out BV to first time IP's, etc. As well as Nat's original point, I'm also seeing editors, to put not to fine a point on it, getting pissy because a block hasn't been issued after they've 4im'd a new minor vandal. I'd like to have/write a guideline or essay which I can just refer people to. I don't want it to be a panacea for all types of evil as we've seen above different admins have different approaches though it should have some creedence amongst those in the know. ^Khukri 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've run into the same situation as zzuuzz where I'll see the big warning for something simple, the editor will do another test edit, and I can't really issue another warning because it would be a final warning and I'm not going to issue a final warning for two simple test edits. Instead, I just sit on the warning and let it slide. Not a very good solution either. Having a little template or essay that tells either editors "Hey, that a little overboard on the warnings there" similar to {{uw-aiv}} would be an excellent idea. Another problem I see and it's really only with TWINKLE users is certain RC patrollers getting overzealous with the checkboxes labeling IP vandals as "vandalism only account" or "recently returned after block" when the block was months ago and there dozens of good edits since then. TWINKLE appears to be nice, but I think it's developed a certain set of checkbox checkers that don't realize what they really means. -- Gogo Dodo 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything written above. It's just as frustrating to me to find AIV reports for over-warned individuals (a {{test3}} or {{bv}} isn't appropriate for the first time an IP adds "Hi" or "i luv Johnny D.!!1!" to a random article) as when I find a long-term vandal who has never received any warnings even though the account has two weeks of adding "Jake is a douchebag" to articles. Khukri, if you start an essay (or decide to update Wikipedia:Vandalism), I'll lend any assistance I can offer. A short vandal-reversion & AIV report guide might be particularly useful... — Scientizzle 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is why admins have to "earn" the privilege of access to the buttons, the community decides to entrust the ability to block other editors. It is up to the admin on how they notify the miscreant of any action taken. I like templates, since it appears to me to be far more neutral, but some admins prefer the personal touch. What is most important, IMO, is that warnings create maximum effect for minimum disruption. I feel that judgement is more important than using an agreed escalation of notices. An admin considering a block needs to look at the warnings given, but should really be weighing the potential effect on Wikipedia on blocking an editor.

Even something as innocuous as "i luv Johnny D" takes as much time to clear up as "jake is a douche bag!" Moreover, the Johnny D fans may not be contributing anything else whereas the editor with a problem with Jake might also, when not testy, be a prolific contributor. Losing the first editor may not be as detrimental to WP as losing the second. The first group may ignore warning notices, such is their feelings for Mr D, whereas the second may respond and cease that activity. Ultimately, templates/warnings are a tool but it is the user that creates and resolves the situation. LessHeard vanU 12:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Notification of being banned or blocked

Shouldn't a notification be automatically placed on a users talk page if they are banned or blocked? Sometimes I see IP's that get blocked but no notification is placed on their user page notifying them of a block. Is this good or bad? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt that a 'bot would have the know-how to place the correct notice (3RR? Vandalism? What?) on the talk page and would probably be stepping on the admin who was delaying by a few mins in placing their own message. Also, the 'bot would have to recognise block notice messages of all types, including custom ones that some admins use. Could be tricky to implement. Also, unless circumstances are extreme, admins should always place block messages on talk pages as a matter of courtesy. It's not enough to just rely on the MediaWiki boilerplate message, IMO - Alison ☺ 07:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A bot could place a copy of the block log message. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
    • True. Or at least a very generic block message, with the block duration, after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed - Alison ☺ 07:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The disadvantage of a delay is that it means the bot needs to be smart enough to guess if a block notice has been placed. The advantage is that it gives the admin a little time to place their own message. I assume we don't want to discourage that? If we actually want to encourage it, the bot could also place a courtesy reminder on the blocking admins page. On the other hand, always copying the block-log would allow admins to say everything they want to say once, in the blocklog, rather than having to put one message in the block-log and another on the page. At once, it would reduce the work required and improve our record keeping. I'll raise it at WP:AN. Ben Aveling 12:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on occasion, I have very deliberately decided not to to out a block notifaction on an IP's talk page. Sometimes they are looking for attention and we need to WP:DENY them that. It's not as if they will not find out they are blocked, the block message will tell them what for. For example if an IP puts something like "block me" or "you can't stop me" i will generally deliberatly not notify them. OTOH there have been many times, I am sure, when I have simply forgotten to place the notice. I don't know. What are the notices actually nneded for? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am more vigorous in templating ip addresses as there is the possibility that the block will effect more than the vandal. Whatever thrill they may get from having poked the bear is likely offset by the fact they cannot vandalise for a time. LessHeard vanU 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While I normally do notify everybody I block, there sometimes cases where I agree with Theresa Knott that informing them is either worthless or just eggs them on. For example, I don't notify sockpuppet accounts of the more prolific sockpuppeters (*cough* SummerThunder) because they known they are getting blocked . I'll add the sockpuppet tag to the user page and protect and leave it at that. -- Gogo Dodo 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If a persons goal is to seek attention, and their actions leading to the block make that clear, and it is obvious they knew what they were doing is wrong, then posting a block notification is contrary to not feeding the trolls. Until(1 == 2) 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is an obvious indicator that an ip is static (if there is, please point it to me as it would help) I find it faster to just template them. I assume the ip is shared, template it, and move on. LessHeard vanU 21:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There can be a time pressure as well. When AIV is backlogged, blocking active vandals quickly is more important that leaving neat talkpage messages. A blocked users gets very full explanations about their block on the screen that comes up when they try to edit - including info about how to challenge their block. The talkpage messages are actually more useful as a way of letting our vandal fighters know easily that an account has been blocked (and there is no need to keep tracking it/ report it) and in creating a clear history of past blocks on the talkpage - the blocked user will get the info whether the message is left or not (and future blocking admins will see the previous block history on the block screen). So not leaving those messages isn't a big deal, though it is often useful to do so. WjBscribe 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Block notices are really only there for everyone else, because whenever they next try to edit they will be notified that they are blocked, by who and why. Especially when using a templated block reason, where the template expands as the block reason. Viridae^Talk 11:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Err WJBscribe said that already. Viridae^Talk 11:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also the small matter of courtesy to the AIV reporter, to let them know that their report was acted upon. I remember it being somewhat satisfying to see the escalating warnings that I dutifully made being terminated in a blocked message. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary. I often leave a series of escalating warnings that result in blocking, but no template message appears on the talk page. I don't mind. I can figure out easily enough when the editor gets blocked. It's far more important to deal with vandalism and disruption quickly, than to put pretty messages on talk pages.

Frankly I don't see why an administrator should do this at all unless they want to. It should be the job of a bot to go through blocked accounts and ensure that the proper template messages are on the talk pages. -Amatulic 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal approach has developed something like this: for routine blocks and general vandals, MediaWiki:Blockedtext will do just fine to notify them of the block and their appeal options (especially considering IP talk pages are bugged, lately); the user talk message adds several pageloads and keeps me from dealing with more pressing issues (when AIV is backlogged to ten entries, and I'm just stopping by for a few minutes, which would you rather I concentrate on, eh? :p). For less routine blocks, 3RR, copyright issues, people I think we may be able to reform or reason with, I usually strive to leave a reason. In short, I don't dole out attention to everybody, but only where I judge it'll do some good. Or something. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly getting rid of the vandals is more important than leaving the talk page message since, as has already been said, the messages are really there for everyone else, not for the blocked user. I do find them really convenient, though -- when I go to a talk page to warn a user whose vandalism I've just reverted, it's nice to see the message letting me know they're blocked and I don't need to worry about them any more. Of course, the block log tells me that too, but seeing the message right there makes things quicker. Anyway, I don't want to see busy admins wasting their time, but at the same time it's handy for vandal fighting... I'd be happy to see a bot that did it in a smart way. As already discussed, it would need to know to wait some period of time to give the admin a chance to leave a message, and not to leave a message when one is already there, and to somehow (this is probably the hardest one) know if a blocking admin doesn't want a message left at all, so it would be pretty complicated (but hopefully not impossible). Pinball22 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY, some people should get a block message, and others should not. It takes a human to tell the difference between the two. The block message is clear enough in the cases of forgetting to leave a post. Until(1 == 2) 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I was picturing not that the bot made the decision but that it somehow took some cue from the block message that an admin deliberately didn't leave a talk page message. Of course, that would require either that admins put some specific text in the block message to cause that or a change to the software to make some kind of checkbox for it, either of which may be too cumbersome to implement to make it worthwhile. I certainly agree that the block message is plenty of notice for the blocked user -- I'm thinking just of the convenience factor in vandal fighting. Pinball22 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an "opt-in" would be better than an "opt-out". Where an admin adds something like "~ABM~" to the block summary to have an "Automatic block message" given. But the "opt-out" system would just be in my way I think. Until(1 == 2) 16:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea... that makes things simpler for the admin than actually going to the page and leaving the message and automatically avoids cases where the admin deliberately doesn't want there to be a message or just hasn't gotten around to typing it yet when the bot checks. Pinball22 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

An advantage could be that vandals can't pretend to be blocked to evade real blocksNVFC 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one think this is a bad idea. Admins should really be explaining blocks to users. The use of templates and especially a bot like this would encourage laziness. As someone who reviews unblock requests, I can say that it can really inconvenience me when an admin doesn't take the time to explain their block. Mangojuice^talk 20:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Tendentious trolls and vandals often appeal blocks just to vex the system. A clearly set out block notice, following a set of warnings preferably, makes the reviewers job easier and faster. A little time spent at the start saves a considerable amount later. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for an admin to explain a block when the talk page already has plenty of warnings making it quite clear why the editor was blocked. In this case an opt-in ~ABV~ string to trigger a bot to add a message is a good idea, making the admin's life more efficient. -Amatulic 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Explaining to a troll that trolling is unacceptable is really just feeding them. The best way to deal with an attention getter is to quietly block them and not communicate further. An example would be a new user that only posts attacks to admins talk page, this account can be blocked and ignored without explaining that this is wrong behavior, they already know that and are just trying to get a rise. This really needs to be left to the discretion of the admin. Per the blocking policy you should not be unblocking anyone until you have talked to the blocking admin, so that is not really an issue. Until(1 == 2) 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although some like to leave messages you do see Mediawiki:Blockedtext on screen if you're blocked and we should just deny knowledge of the trolls. — Rlest 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically on an unrelated note (I just love these images) a troll looks like this when vandaling: and then the Wikipedians who are reverting look like this: and when the trolls are blocked they look like this: and we then go: . Sorry about the crazy pics. — Rlest 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I could care less about trolls and denying them their grubby little needs. If an admin who volunteers to review unblock requests says it helps him to have notices and explanations to make his life easier I will apply myself to helping them. As blocking is preventative (as regards Wikipedia) than punitive then I believe my approach is justifiable. That is not to say you folks are wrong, but I am happy with my choices. LessHeard vanU 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't need you to go into it at length. A simple "I've blocked you indefinitely for trolling at this article" is plenty sufficient.  :) Or substitute "disruptive editing" for "trolling." Whatever. The ones I most need helpful details on are sockpuppet blocks: admins who routinely deal with a puppetmaster are inclined to not explain themselves on the blocks, and it can be hard to piece together the puzzle. Mangojuice^talk 00:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You want the relevant article as well!? ;~) LessHeard vanU 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this idea because there are times when a talk page should definitely not be created. Some troll creates an account with a username that says that a particular user's real name, or address, or phone number is . . . We don't want such talk pages showing up in Google. Before I was sysopped, when I made a report at WP:AIV, that page would show up in my watchlist a few moments later with an entry from a bot saying that that vandal was being removed from the report because they had been blocked for X length of time by Admin Y. If the concern is for the vandals themselves, a block message will appear on the screen next time they try to edit, giving them all the information they need. Mind you, I nearly always do leave block notices, and I approve of doing so. I'd just hate to think that on the occasion that I had made a prudent decision not to do so, a bot would automatically rush in and do it. I know that the newly-created page can be deleted, but that's not ideal either, as it shows up in the deletion logs. ElinorD (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with Elinor. Well said. --John 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, John, how do you feel about the opt-in idea discussed above? Where a bot only leaves a message on the user's talk page if the blocking admin puts some special test in the block message to trigger it? Pinball22 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think a less burdensome solution would be for admins who want to make it easier on themselves to leave block messages to have a script like WP:TW help them out. It's probably as easy as it can get to do it that way, if an admin would have to explicitly opt-in to get the bot to help. Mangojuice^talk 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "opt in" means tick a box like with anon only blocks and disabling account creation. I don't think that would be hard (although I my self have very limited knowledge of the mediawiki namespace). I leave block messages and I find them useful. For example, If I find a user has just returned from a block I'm more likely to block after 1 re-offence, I don't check the user logs before warning them, but if I see they've been recently blocked I might skip to a final warning. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, sorry, in my post above I wrote "test" when I meant "text"... I was thinking of the above-discussed concept of putting a string like ~AVB~ in the block that the bot would pick up on so that there wouldn't have to be a change made to add a checkbox. Pinball22 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)