Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Request for long-term IP vandal blocks, protection of target articles

{Item brought here based on a suggestion made at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, where I first posted it)

I posted the following request at WP:AIV on 25 June. I don't know whether any action was taken, but the vandalism seemed to quiet down for a few days. However, yesterday and today the same nonsense vandalisms began to be reposted to some of the same articles, namely (so far) 690, Outsider art, and Greaser (subculture). I spend a lot of time chasing anonymous vandals; I don't seek them out but when I see them I revert, warn, and try to track down their other vandalisms. I can't speak for the other editors who have run across this small band of vandals, but I am personally dismayed and disappointed that these very few users and very few articles are not yet under control. As a non-admin, I've done all I can. Thanks for any help. --CliffC 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a collection of characters (or maybe only two or three) who repeatedly deface certain articles with the same cut-and-paste nonsense - usually about greasers, squares, honey-roasted peanuts, or the advantages of smoking dope. Most of these edits are made with deceptive, or confrontational, edit summaries. Most IPs have received last warnings but not all; that seemed pointless since they operate as a collective and just pop up somewhere else. A week or so ago I requested a range block at WP:AIV but as best I can tell the block was granted for only part of the range, and only for a few hours. Other editors have IP-protected some of the usual victim pages for a day or two, but as soon as the protection was lifted the vandals were back at it. I have kept track, with commentary, on my talk page here (a section named and started by one of the vandals), but for readability the IPs and the pages victimized are listed here. Thank you for looking into this. I know I'm not the only editor these guys are wearing down. --CliffC 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal IPs
Regularly vandalized pages
I think CliffC does speak for a number of other users, including yours truly. Some forceful adminstrative action is overdue in this case. BTfromLA 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I would press the point over at WT:AIV. The automated processes for reverting vandalism (i.e. bots) has come a long way, but there is still a need for involvement from editors. The last thing we need is one more wikipedian resigning in frustration. --Aarktica 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll do that. Several vandalisms last night in the usual style to the usual targets show that nothing's happened yet. --CliffC 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the most obvious ones. JoJan 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that halfway measures are not going to work here. The nonprotected article Outsider Art was vandalized overnight,as was Joe DiMaggio. It is obvious this morning that even if every article listed above were to be protected, protection will not solve the problem, but only spread it. As perhaps the only editor who issued vandalism warnings to this collection of characters, today I find that two articles I recently edited are new targets of the same style of vandalism

and the vandal(s) have registered as User:Angelofmcgloff and User:McgloffianSeraphim, names of course similar to the "Penis McGloff" character featured in many past vandalisms. Googling Wikipedia for "McGloff", I found a remarkably detailed log showing several editors being jerked around and having their time wasted by the same cast of characters back in February, here. Long-term blocks of these IPs are needed. --CliffC 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

CliffC, I'm somewhat curious, as to why you jumped directly to the last warning, on most of these pages. Granted, I can see how 4.158.204.0/24 (Level 3) is probably related, the others might not necessarily be related. I mean, on your list you've got Charter Communications, Comcast, University of Minnesota, and Universitas Nebrissensis in Spain. Have you considered contacting Level 3's abuse department? --SXT40 08:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I originally started keeping track of these characters on my user page here; the report above is a condensed and better organized account of their activities, not including last night's. I mention on my user page, and probably should have said here, the rationale for issuing {{uw-vandal4}} warnings to apparent "first time" vandals: based on the same wording and imaginary names being used across multiple edits, this is a few people popping up at different IP addresses in whack-a-mole style. I thought it pointless to issue the full series of warnings to each. If the thought is that some of the more remote vandals haven't been properly warned, I would encourage all editors to issue warnings whenever they revert a vandalism.
I have no idea of what ISPs host these people. I'm not an admin, that's why I'm here at "Administrator intervention against vandalism" asking for action. I don't think it makes sense for me to contact anyone's ISP about a Wikipedia problem. --CliffC 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The latest metastasis, here. --CliffC 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal blocked for 1 month JoJan 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another here. I assume they follow my edits because I was the first or only editor to warn them when this nonsense started. I no longer bother reverting these or other vandalisms, nor will I be issuing any vandalism warnings. --CliffC 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal blocked for 1 month JoJan 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuation here and here. --CliffC 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked for 1 month. JoJan 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The latest - articles I've edited, here and here. As a bonus my user page was paid a visit here. The steps taken thus far do not seem effective. --CliffC 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, both Ips have been blocked for 1 month. A range block, on the other hand, would cause too much collateral damage. JoJan 09:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Kids at it again last night, five visits to my user page with this, each reverted by other editors; also this again to an article I edit. --CliffC 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The vandals have been blocked. If more attacks follow on your user page, you can request semi-protection of your user page. JoJan 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One that still needs reverting here. One discovered in an article new to me here. --CliffC 01:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Finger (gesture) and 1 month block for the IPs JoJan 05:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind checking to see if each vandalism has been reverted when it's reported? I have stopped reverting these kids personally, frankly in the hope they will go harass someone else and leave the articles I edit alone. Other editors do eventually stumble upon and revert the sillier edits, but some of their edits seem plausible in the context of the article and are left to add to the general level of contamination. As an example, the two edits most recently mentioned are still in place. --CliffC 15:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange, slow, anonymous IP vandalism ... where to turn?

I stumbled across this vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.138.110.204

So far as I have been able to determine, neither "Katie McMasters" nor "Travis Spotts" exists. Trouble is, 74.138.110.204 is in a large pool of 32,768 dynamic addresses, which makes it very difficult to see how many fictional people this person has added to small towns' resumes. Is there any way to get a list of contributions for 74.138.*.*? I'll wade through them if anyone can build the list, but I'm not willing to manually search for contributions from all of them. Kww 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to bug me

Since watching AIV and acting on vandalism, I am getting a little weary of finding that the users being reported are not currently vandalising, have not been issued warnings re subject matter reported, or otherwise contrary to the template on the top of the page. Is this par for the course? LessHeard vanU 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the user I reported recently (User:Greenpuppet)? He had already previously been given a blatant vandal warning, yet returned to vandalize again. As I understand it, users can be blocked at this point (at least that's how I've always seen it done). --Kurt Shaped Box 22:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, someone agreed with you - and no, it wasn't that one particularly. At one point I had three reports which didn't comply to the letter of the notice at the top of the page - I guess I am not keen to hammer them for violating the rules when the reporting isn't as squeaky as it could be... nevermind, you are one of the reporters that I think does a good job on the anti-vandal front. LessHeard vanU 22:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of these users have never ever reported vandalism or used this page before in their whole Wikipedia career. Thus they would not necessarily understand the proper procedures of what to do beforehand. They believe that it is necessary to report a serious vandal despite that the vandal has not been active for several days. However it does stump me too that the big green instruction box is often ignored. Still I don't blame those who file incorrect AIV reports. Just give them time to catch on. As long as their reports are not filed in bad faith, all is good.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was just letting of steam. Truth is, I am an inclusionist and a liberal so doing the policing bit can get me a little wired - never mind, if I didn't care then maybe I wouldn't do the job to the best that I can. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to indefinitely block anons

Considering that many persistent and malicous vandals are anons are vandalizing the encyclopedia and keep vandalising after the block, it should be permissible to indefinetely block anons. I do understand that many IP addresses are shared, but is it not obvious that certain IP addresses are used by one person. We can tell this by looking at thier contribs and seeing that there are no constructive edits. Marlith T/C 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, yes. Practically, nobody should. We can keep extending the block until its realllllllly long but we shouldn't indefblock IPs, generally. --Deskana (banana) 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Generally agreed. If the particular IP becomes a real pain in the ass, we can certainly hit it for 6 months. If it starts up again, it'll get blocked again immediately. Bothering us a couple times a year isn't a bad tradeoff to prevent collateral damage, since all IPs will eventually change hands, may be shared, may be a school vandal who will eventually leave that school, etc. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest a posting at WP:AN to gain consensus before blocking an IP indef. And before doing that you want to demonstrate that it is both a static IP, and has a history of unproductive edits only. It is far better to just ramp up the block length, I generally go as high as 2 or 3 weeks for IPs that repeat offend in the same manner. Until(1 == 2) 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Until on this. Keep increasing steadily until the block is six months long. If he has had several six month blocks, then I'd say a year, but preferably no more. · AndonicO Talk 01:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree -- I personally don't even indef open proxies. Things change. People move. ISPs switch. Who knows what any given IP address will or won't represent in a year? Two years? Five years? Even blocking for six months should be rare, I think, and I find it hard to even theoretically justify any IP block longer than a year. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is nothing but problems from a school, a block until Friday, or even summer break are a good idea. Until(1 == 2) 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Marlith T/C 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sox23

Hi everyone. User:Mw93 keeps telling me that I'm vandalizing wikipedia and that he's going to have me blocked. Can someone take a look at what I've done and tell him that I'm not vandalizing wiki. Thanks! Sox23 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You could have told him without screaming at him (giving your all caps comments), but I understand your frustration. —Kurykh 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave him a polite message about it. But Kurykh is right, no need to feed the flames. Edit: Nevermind seems Kurykh already took care of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I already did. —Kurykh 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone- I'm just so frustrated b/c this is the second time this has happened to me in less than a week! But I'll take everything into consideration. Thanks again! Sox23 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bots?

Is it just me, or are the HBC bot(s) not working right now? Jmlk17 09:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

yup, apparently, bot 2's last edit was at 02:49. -- lucasbfr talk 09:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Damn bots... But is it just coincidence that all bots have failed? Maybe someone changed the formatting so it doesn't work properly... --DarkFalls talk 09:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A little beyond my capabilities right there :). Jmlk17 09:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
In a related matter, did anyone know the reason behind the changing of the bots from this to this? --DarkFalls talk 10:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, User:H has left the project. According to Chaser, other bots are running the same code, but this does not appear to be the case. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that there may be a way to reach User:H - I'll see if I can track him down. - Philippe | Talk 21:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The bots do normally run the same source code, but have been inactive the last few days/hours. I put in a request here for more helperbots, but it may be a while. In the meantime, manual removal it is!--Chaser - T 21:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, just like the old days eh? :) Jmlk17 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A new bot is now working: Special:Contributions/HBC_AIV_helperbot4 !! --Hdt83 Chat 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Bless! LessHeard vanU 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Jmlk17 01:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, each bot's userpage contains links to a) the other bots and b) that particular bot's operator. Please use that information to inform the bot operators when there are problems like this, as we cannot always monitor all the possible talk pages where problems may be mentioned. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 02:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain what all this is?

For the past hour, multiple IPs, each doing one edit, are adding literally line upon line of pure gibberish to seemingly unrelated articles. The lines of text are just... they don't appear to be a foreign language, "Ssla union controke sulari slike anably mcater." and it doesn't appear to be "Backwards" text, which I've seen in the past, but it is just strange it is from different IPs, each seems to be doing only one edit, and I feel like I'm chasing something that can't be caught; they don't do enough edits to warrant reporting, but the edits continue on different IPs. example, and a look at my contribs for the past half hour would show a good selection as well, as I specifically state in edit summary I'm reverting gibberish, and usually paste the first line of it. What is this? Does anyone know? Ariel♥Gold 05:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a vandalism bot. Most likely a virus infected home PC. Report on sight, no warnings needed. -- Gogo Dodo 05:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, that's just... sad. How is it that there are so many computers (well in the past half hour, for example) that are doing it at once? Okay, granted, I don't really understand the "mindset" of vandals, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why someone would wish to do that... As for the reporting, I'm a real stickler for the "four reports, then submit" thing, so how would I word it in the AIV report? "Suspected Bot/Virus"? Would that make sense? I added an example of a particular IP that for the past couple days has been really prolific, and it feels like we're chasing our tails, lol. I would just like to be sure I am okay to report these incidents, when they usually only do one edit per IP, seems kind of... futile. Thank you for answering me, Gogo Dodo! Ariel♥Gold 06:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Just report it as a vandalbot, which it is, running from a compromised proxy service. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie! But sheesh, if I had done that with all the edits tonight, well, you good people would be most decidedly tired of seeing my lil' ol name! Ariel♥Gold 06:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, there are lots of admins. =) As for how... well, it's called a botnet. Lots of infected PC out there under the control of a single person who has something against Wikipedia. Yes, it is rather sad. -- Gogo Dodo 06:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a trick I use; if you have to report something right away or get something quickly under control, just go to either the block log or the deletion log. Nine times out of ten the situation will get looked over shortly. :) -WarthogDemon 06:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is good information. I had a few of these reported for blocking on Saturday, and wasn't sure what I was seeing at the time... I just knew that it was getting out in front of me fast! Just one point of clarification... WarthogDemon, you suggest deletion log or the block log in order to find an active admin, correct? (just wanted to make sure I read that right, and to spell it our for anyone else). Thanks! Hiberniantears 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I actually meant to come back and clarify but forgot to last night. :P Thanks for clarifying for me! :) -WarthogDemon 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Block these on sight

Just to clarify - every IP used by this vandalbot that has been checked has proved to be a proxy so far. Its a distinct vandalism pattern - report it here at the first edit (no need to warn - its a Bot!). Admins should hardblock indefinitely with the summary {{proxyblock}}. Seems quite a few of these edits are slipping through the net, we need be more proactive in putting a stop to this Bot. WjBscribe 18:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They have a very distinct editing pattern. Would it b possible to make a bot (or modify an existing anti-vandal bot) to spot these edits and immediately report them here? From looking at the one I blocked, they add strings of random nonsense words, remove text in larger articles (usually leaving only the first sentence in a paragraph), and always add a period in an extra line in the bottom of articles. Edit rate appears to be 5-8 edits per minute except for the first edit which usually comes a few minutes before the rest. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Captcha on this page?

Any way to disable it? I imagine it might be kind of annoying to heavy users of this page to be hit with a Captcha challenge each time they use the IPVandal and Vandal templates. Plus, I don't think spam is a big issue on this page... Av99 02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Only new users get the captcha, after you have had your account for a while it will go away. I think it is one week or two weeks, not sure. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks! Av99 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if the captcha had a URL whitelist, so that the WHOIS links on IPvandal wouldn't trigger the thing--172.134.197.231 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be nice, though I don't think the software supports it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The meta:Interwiki map bypasses the captcha as far as I know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Efforts to hijack Singh article

Efforts to hijack Singh article, as some people are making constant effort to hijack the article and keep it only for Sikhs saying that provide reference if Singh is a Rajput common name, they keep erasing reference that Sing is a Rajput name at all. They keep proving that Singh is a Sikh name only. I suspect these are foreign editors who have no idea what they are talking about obviously. They also put a warning within he article not to edit it and have left a warning on my talk page too, please investigate so that they stop vandalizing Rajput mention from the article.

See this version of the article that erases all reference that Singh is a common name used by Rajputs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singh&oldid=153438525

Atulsnischal 17:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the venue to raise complaints of this type. What you have here is not a case of vandalism - you have an editing dispute. Please follow the instructions at our dispute resolution page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

Ok Iam very sorry. I accused User:Wildhartlivie of deleting the RMS Titanic article. Being prove this isn't so I retract my previous Statement and want to express how sorry I REALLY am. Iam very sorry.Philippe Auguste 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Hopefully you have put the same(ish) message on his talkpage? LessHeard vanU 19:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Am i allowed to remove vandalism warnings, copyright image notices, etc, from my user talk page? User:Yamakiri user has threatened to permanently protect my user talk page so that i cant edit it. Can i remove copyright image notices at least? i hope you see this soon. thx Modelun88 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting them is considered slightly disruptive, however they can still be found in the page history if deleted. It would be best if you archived the comments instead. AngelOfSadness talk 00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Getting of tired of going behind him... Anyways, he's removed block notices, and I'm not an admin so I just requested that his page be protected and that he get a block. P.S. he's copied and pasted this on quite a few pages now.Yamakiri 00:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Removal of warnings from the talkpage is taken as an indication that the editor has read them. Therefore an editor can remove them, but then cannot claim to be unaware of the content of same - it is assumed they were read before deciding to delete. 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)

142.150.33.24

I understand if you want to hold off on blocking this one until it shows a little more activity. I forgot I had run a whois and it resolved to a school district (therefore put a schoolip template up). Whatever works. Thanks HelperBot (yes I know your a bot, but whatever :D) --Amaraiel 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Help

After reading this page and others on vandalism, I am still confused about when I should list people as vandals, and what I should include in my notes on this page. I don't want to give admins extra work by messing up, so I just haven't been reporting anyone. I come across vandalism reasonably often because I have ended up a large 'watch list'. Questions:

  1. With a user like 158.103.0.1 who has been warned and blocked in the past, should I add him/her to the report list when s/he vandalises again, as s/he did with David Hume, or am I supposed to warn again if it is a few days since s/he vandalised? What if it is a month since s/he vandalised?
  2. How do I write an IP adress down so that it links to the person's page, contributions etc.?

Thanks, Anarchia 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I just found the instructions are on the reporting page when you hit 'edit page' - problem is I haven;t hit 'edit page' before because I didn't know what to do! It might be good to have them in the instructions for timid types like me. Anarchia 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I did type out an answer, and edit conflict with your self-response. As regards warnings for ip addresses, any warning older than 24 hours may not be relevant - given that multiple users may edit from the same address. Best issue a new one and only report if that is violated within the 24 hour period. LessHeard vanU 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Anarchia 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalist using multiple IP's

May I please ask assistance for blocking a user of whom has used User:Tarzan1000, Special:Contributions/121.79.3.11 and Special:Contributions/121.79.27.243. This is a repeat vandal, of whom is using multiple accounts. The IP accounts both begin with '121.79', so I am not sure if this could be added to a filter. The user has already been blocked numerous times, and the user is now using new accounts. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Stickeylabel 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused

The IP, 68.192.51.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is constantly adding an incorrect fact in an article I edit, English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew‎. The original sentance says: "No DVDs of Mew Mew Power have been released in North America.", but the IPer has changed it to:

  • No DVDs of Mew Mew Power have been released in North America yet.
  • No DVDs of Mew Mew Power have been released in North America as of yet.
  • No DVDs of Mew Mew Power have been released in North America as of now.
  • As of today, no DVDs of Mew Mew Power have been released in North America.

I revert this because it implies to readers that there really is a chance that Mew Mew Power being released on DVDs, when it is verry unlikely. I don't want to give any fans of the show false hope. If there was any mention of it on a realible site, then, when the time comes, I would add it. But as I've already said, it verry unlikely. So, can this be called vandalism, or just a stupid annoyance? THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It could be vandalism, but it's really probably just somebody who does not know what he is taling about. Try to talk it over with the IP. If that does not work out, you could try filing a WP:AN/I and sorting things out with an administrator's assistance. You Can't Review Me!!! 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible partial block?

Pardon the newb question... Is it possible to put a partial block in place? United States Bill of Rights gets vandalized by IPaddress accounts multiple times every day. Is it possible to block that article so tthat only registered editors can work on it? It'd save a lot of time and hassle. Arthurrh 00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possible. Please see WP:RPP and request protection there. You Can't Review Me!!! 00:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick survey

If an IP address is reported here following recent vandalism and the talk page contains the {{repeat vandal}} template and no recent warnings, would you block? --Tango 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It would probably help if people gave reasons rather than just said 'yes' or 'no'. From a hopefully not too obnoxious critical thinking teacher Anarchia 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes

No

  1. Tango
  2. The particular person vandalizing right then might not have seen the template, especially if they haven't gotten any messages that day. Sometimes the warnings work without having to block them. delldot talk 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. (per comments in section above) LessHeard vanU 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends...

  1. ...on the circumstances. The repeat vandal template wouldn't be a consideration in my block. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How many warnings?

It seems like some admins here won't block someone unless all 4 warnings have been given out within an hour or so, while others will block on the second warning. What are some of your opinions? It would help when I report people, because if people really want to vandalize, they tend to do it multiple times and not worry about the concequences. Waiting for 5 violations seems too long. On the other hand, we all know about that error that made the banner not appear on some IP editors. What are some ideas here? Any responses would be great! - Hairchrm 02:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends. As a general rule, I usually want to see warnings have gone to level 3 before I'll block. If somebody started vandalizing multiple pages quickly, then I would block them faster, on the grounds that blocks are to prevent and not punish. Conversely, I will delist and decline to block any IP address that hasn't gotten a warning today (unless he's back at the same article he was vandalizing before). I'll cut a newbie slack if they honestly don't know any better, but once they start showing a pattern of malice, that's when I clamp down and block. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The other thing I look at is recency of edits. If it's an IP, and it's been more than an hour since the last edit, I read that as they've left, so there's nothing to be gained with a block. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well said, C.Fred. I tend to be more of a stickler for giving more warnings, since I've found that vandals often stop on their own before a t4 if you're persistent about it. Plus, I think blocks can be more harmful than vandalism sometimes. For example, if a kid figures out that they can get their whole school blocked, that may well be more satisfying or exciting than editing a page only to have it disappear 30 seconds later. And in my view, it's more damaging to us because we miss out on potentially good edits and editors. An exception for IP's would be if they're showing familiarity with WP, e.g. by vandalizing user pages or WP pages, suggesting they're a return vandal who doesn't need to have anything explained. Or if they're obviously the same person who just came off a block, like they're writing the same thing on the same page. But I'll often remove posts to AIV if it's an IP that's only been warned once or vandalized (in a typical way) a couple times that day. delldot talk 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If a kid figures out they can get the whole school blocked then maybe the school will start to take kids misusing the schools' internet more seriously... While I'm not an admin so I don't control when people are blocked and I rarely have to report people here IMHO there's no harm in blocking after one L3 or BV warning regardless of whether or not preceeding warnings were given. Ignoring the new messages bug, IMHO it should be clear to someone once they've received such a clear cut warning that they can be blocked so there is no reason why you can't block them if they continue. Blocking them in this instance is more about prevention then punishment. If they've been active in say an hour or so, they may come back. They may not. Blocking them is probably easier then watching, reverting and warning again if they do come back. And IMHO blocking is much more likely to be effective in discouraging people from repeating the action if they do come back even if they simply came back to see whether it's still there then a warning. A block sends the message stop wasting our time. Sure sometimes it may be counterproductive but most of the time it works better then warnings IMHO. Perhaps occasionally we miss out on contructive edits by blocking but I doubt it's often that people vandalise then come back a short while later and improve wikipedia (remember we're talking about short blocks here). The only instance this is likely is when they come back to fix the vandalism but if they've been reported to be blocked we can presume the vandalism been's reverted anyway. Also when it comes to lamers who want to block their school etc, while I'm sure there are cases I strongly suspect it's far more likely that people will be scared when they find out they've had their whole school blocked (or even just their home internet access). Remember that a lot of people aren't going to realise it's rather unlikely the IT admins will track them down and they'll get in trouble. For home IPs well for kids at home may in fact be at (marginal) risk of getting in trouble. More importantly perhaps, once someone has received a L3 of BV warning, they're likely aware they may be blocked. Indeed it doesn't take a genius to realise that if you keep disrupting a website you tend to get blocked and in fact I think people are much more surprised that it's so hard to get blocked on wikipedia rather then that they can get blocked. While I guess it's likely that some people won't realise being blocked means their whole school is blocked until they are blocked it seems to me there will be quite a number who will and also others who just want to try it out. My point being that I'm not convinced not blocking people will help much since you don't actually have to block someone for them to think it's fun to be blocked and if people do think it's fun to be blocked, obviously the sooner you actually block them the better (otherwise they'll just keep going until you block them). Nil Einne 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
N.B. Admitedly reverting is now a lot simpler for us mere mortals now that the undo has been implemented so it isn't as big an issue as it used to be. Also I'm presuming in the above that the BV/L3 was appropriate i.e. it was clear cut and probably mildly offensive vandalism. For example if someone posts stuff like faggot, Mr Willy is gay etc in a page or adds blatantly false information in an article like Bill Gates was arrested in 2007 while having sex with Dick Cheney. Obviously blocking someone who was well meaning too easily may discourage them not only now but in the future. I don't really think blocking someone who is obviously just vandalising is likely to discourage them from contributing meaningfully in the future (and as I mentioned I don't think it's often they'll come back and want to contribute meaningfully in the very short term). Nil Einne 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all the admins and registered users here, it does varies depending on the severity of the vandalism and how rapid the vandalism is coming from that anonymous user. Usually we give 3 to 4 warnings (2 if it is particularly severe like intentional copyvio./libel). The more rapid the vandalism is coming from that user, the more quickly they get blocked. However, if an anon. vandal vandalizes articles in quick succesion without a warning, we should give them a warning template immediately (like a "bv" warning). IMHO, vandals who do that should not be blocked straight out for their actions, but rather educate them to become productive contributor (most vandals won't proceed with this maturity BTW). They may change, but with a 10-90 chance (10% being that the vandal will reform and the 90% vandalizing until he/she is banned). There is another factor, and that is shared IP adresses. If it is a shared IP adress used by thousands of users then they get quite a number of warnings before getting blocked. If they are blocked, mass collateral damage may result so they have to use the {{autoblock}}. In conclusion, it varies a whole lot depending on severity, rapidness, and how much the IP is used (like sharing).--PrestonH 06:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mousepad vandalism

The article Mousepad has been suffering from a long term anonymous user who wants to claim that he invented the mousepad without providing sufficient sources. In an attempt to appease him, the article does show that he contributed something to the history of development of the mouseapd, but this is not enough and he regularly changes it. I believe his edits now constitute vandalism.

Problem is, his IP changes repeatedly.

Would it be possible to block all of the following IPs in order to try to stop the vandalism to this article? (From last 100 edits to article and talk page)

Special:Contributions/72.245.82.123
Special:Contributions/68.167.2.192
Special:Contributions/68.166.131.200
Special:Contributions/68.164.148.182
Special:Contributions/68.164.115.250
Special:Contributions/68.164.150.251
Special:Contributions/67.101.48.25
Special:Contributions/68.166.129.177
Special:Contributions/67.101.48.145
Special:Contributions/68.164.238.11
Special:Contributions/64.105.27.82
Special:Contributions/68.164.117.15
Special:Contributions/68.183.42.91
Special:Contributions/75.43.218.42
Special:Contributions/75.43.204.110
Special:Contributions/67.101.104.107
Special:Contributions/68.166.134.177
Special:Contributions/67.101.107.181
Special:Contributions/75.43.209.242
Special:Contributions/75.47.162.159
Special:Contributions/75.43.207.250

Or are we going to have to semi-protect? Or can we do something else? GDallimore (Talk) 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Definitely semiprotect, if nothing else. --Masamage ♫ 17:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It is now semi-protected. However, the problem with that is that the article is in need of work, and needs more sources in particular. Established editors have been unable to come up with anything more, but maybe another (non-trouble-causing) anon IP might be come along, wanting to contribute, but be unable to due to the semi-protect. Any suggestions? GDallimore (Talk) 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You could try filing an abuse report with the ISPs involved. From what I can tell, there appears to be two. Nil Einne 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Tagged all IP addresses with {{sockpuppet|Moisesxyz}}, along with a few other IP addresses. The obsession with the Mousepad started in March 2007, and was carried over on IP addresses instead through the main account. At least now we can use WP:SSP so that other editors can identify that there is a long-term abuse pattern. --Sigma 7 11:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In point, it goes back to October 1 of last year, when the IP user first inserted the Fernandez claim ([here]). This has been a repeated issue (admins and editors new to the problem not realizing how far back the issue goes, so underestimating it), so I just wanted to clarify - this is two weeks short of a full year now. A full view of the edits can be seen by going forward from that date. That is also not the only named account the user in question has had; the sock puppet stuff really isn't going to work very effectively since everytime the user has named themselves, they've been blocked pretty shortly. So they're unlikely to ever bother with that again. Since they rarely/almost never get assigned the same IP twice, sock puppet tagging doesn't really effectively identify the problem for most admins, who continue to act as though incidents are independent (which we assume most IPs are, but which is clearly not the case here). --Thespian 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reporting via TWINKLE

I am reporting via twinkle, however my reports dont seem to be making it through. Do I have to issue a warning first before TWINKLE will actually send the report through? Because I am just reporting vandalous IP's without giving warnings, either that or someone else has reported the IP and I didn't notice. Just wondering if that's a bug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Warren (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

TWINKLE doesn't require that the user has already been warned before they are reported, though reporting IPs here without any warnings is unlikely to lead to a block. TWINKLE is being restructured at the moment, so it's probably just a temporary bug. Hut 8.5 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the edit links on the main WP:AIV page tend to mistarget. I clicked on the one next to User-Reported, and ended up modifying the page for bot edits. Is it possible to fix that, or could the bots simply undo the changes? --Sigma 7 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think something is going wrong, I click edit to rm a warning, and see an entirely different set of reports in edit mode. Cleared cache, changed browser, mmmmmmm Khukri 14:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I did the exact same thing as Khukri, but I still had problems. Not sure if the problem still persists, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
S'ok now for me. Khukri 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere along the way, the "User-reported" header was moved to the TB2 subpage. I fixed that. Things should be okay now. — TKD::Talk 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Where to report?

This page is for intervening against active vandals, where do I report vandals that say make 2 edits a day? But continuously? It's an IP address but it is repetitively vandalising an article and my user page. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you post it and see what we can do? — madman bum and angel 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you're referrring to 139.76.128.71 (talk · contribs); I've left a warning on their talk page. They've been editing consistently for several days, now, it seems quite likely that this is a static, non-shared IP. Let me know if they continue disrupting anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User to report

Jackson555666, is constantly vandalizing the article "Hitman 5". He has already been warned before. Sorry, I don't know where else to report this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRiM-reapa (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the report. Blocked by User:Wknight94. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to classify

I used the "blatantvandal-n" template and added a comment to this IP's talk page User_talk:66.244.100.33

Only 3 edits (4 saves) were recorded from this IP in the last 30 days. Always the same article, always the same content that was removed. Two edits have a edit summary talking about link farms and spam etc. The 3rd one has no summary. The edits were always reverted. This IP nor anybody else disputed the content at the articles talk page, which is currently a Wikipedia:Good article candidate. The edits are obviously specific and very targeted and seem to have personal motivation. Any suggestions? Was my use of the template appropriate? Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Try using {{uw-longterm}} next time, remembering to substitute the template. --DarkFalls talk 06:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, do you mean with "next time", the next time this guy does the same edit again or next time that something like this happens with a different article? Thanks or the clarification. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Ignore the question. I replaced the Blatantvandal template with the uw-longterm one at User_talk:66.244.100.33 (I placed the other one only a few minutes ago). I added a reference to this talk page in the edit summary. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reporting rationale

One of my pet bug-bears at the moment is editors reporting anonymous IP's as vandalism only accounts. Any thoughts to in the header where it says 2. Your report is concise as to what..... we give one or two example of concise reporting such as. Continued vandalism to articleX after final warning.

I did suggest a while back about creating a guideline to slot into 'dealing with vandalism' at WP:VAND. This would explain about not (normally) issuing first time vandals with a lvl4 warning, that reports here should usually have a final warning, and that there are exceptions to the rules, but that they are exceptions and not the norm. We could then add the guidline to the {{uw-aiv}} template. Worth doing it, or would go round in circles with symantics before it got MfD'd? Khukri 16:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right that a lot of people wouldn't like it, and it's true that we should keep it as un-wordy as possible to increase the chances that people will read any of it, but I actually think it's a good idea: First, I think we may be deterring timid people by failing to provide enough guidance. There's no real way to know, but I've talked to people in real life who say they're too afraid to edit for fear of messing something up, and I remember having that feeling myself as a newbie. Second, I'm also bugged by the too-soon reporting and overuse of the 4im warnings, and I think it would be a good idea to put on the record that it's not a cops-and-robbers thing we're doing here, to combat that mentality. delldot talk 14:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
People should be adequately warned, especially if there is any doubt as to good faith/bad faith of their edits. However, we do need to make it clear that once we can definitely determine someone is a vandal and not just testing/trying to be helpful, they are not entitled to any warnings, it is just a courtesy so they know for sure the consequences. Mr.Z-man 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If an address is static, and it is only being used for vandalism, I have no problems with a long term block without a final warning. It is reasonably safe to assume it is only one user, and will remain that way. Besides, it is common for IP users to not receive the warning messages anyway. aliasd·U·T 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What should be done when another RC patroller goes overboard?

This seems to be happening more frequently to me lately, so I'd like some advice. I will revert some "I love Tracy" vandalism on a page, and go to the user's talk page to leave a welcome and a {{uw-test1}} warning, only to find that they have already received a {{blatantvandal}} or {{uw-vandal4im}} for their one previous edit, along the lines of "Hi Tracy".

Seems extraordinarily unlikely that an admin at AIV is going to block this user if I report them for vandalism past final warning, and I'd feel pretty stupid reporting them anyway. But the question is, what do I do instead?

  • Overwrite the previous warning, and add a gentler warning for both edits? Seems like a gigantic no-no to mess with other people's talk page edits.
  • Add what I consider a more appropriate warning below, and not comment on the discrepancy? Not only does it make us look dumb, and impotent, but the vandal might think that at this rate, one more piece of vandalism will get them a barnstar.
  • Add what I consider a more appropriate warning below, and include a comment that while I think the previous warning was too harsh, the behavior really needs to stop? (What I've been doing, but still makes me feel that by "arguing with each other in front of the kids", as it were, we still look like we don't know what we're doing.)
  • Ask the first editor to retract their warning? I guarantee that a lot of the time, this is going to piss them off, and waste a lot of time, and feels like making a mountain out of a molehill.
  • If I deal with it myself, is it still worth a trip to the first editor's talk page to point out that it might have been too harsh? Again, seems like that's a recipe for unproductive arguing, but I could be too pessimistic.

Any other ideas?

Obviously most of the time the situation is slightly greyer than this; the vandalism is somewhat worse than "Hi Tracy", or they've been warned twice, with a warning sequence {{uw-vandal1}}, {{uw-vandal4}}. But the question still holds, and I've seen a scenario very close to what I describe above several times now.

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that generally what I'd do is leave the first warning, but then add a level 2 or 3 (depending on severity) after it. I'd then leave a message for the first patroller (direct, specific, but obviously non-punishing) letting them know what I did and why. Some folks can sometimes get a little bit warn happy. :-) - Philippe | Talk 19:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[ec]It should be perfectly acceptable to overwrite an inappropriately harsh template warning with something more appropriate. Justify it in your edit summary (anything beyond a template warning should be approached more carefully). It shouldn't be a big deal to the 1st RCPer, but sometimes people have bad days or get carried away. As for bringing it up directly to RCPer #1, that's your call based on your familiarity with said editor, the editor's general experience level (a lot of new RC patrollers weild too big a stick, for example), and the nature of the vandalism. If it was egregiously bad, or if there's a pattern of overly harsh warnings, a conversation is entirely appropriate. It's just important for all sides to remember we're all on the same team and you hit the nail on the head that blocking an IP for two counts of "I luv Joey" is something we're loathe to do... — Scientizzle 19:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts here are that there are usually a couple of factors involved in such situations. First, I think their are always going to be editors who are a little warn crazy, or on the hunt for someone they can report to AIV in an effort to "run up the score" of users they have managed to get blocked. Second, a less worrisome subset of this issue would be an editor issuing a warning using Vandal Proof or Twinkle, and possibly thinking that they actually reverted and warned, rather than just warned. I know this has happened to me a handful of times while using VP. If I were an admin, responding to a reported vandal, I would personally take a look at the contribs, and compare them to the quantity of warnings, and when those warnings were issues (i.e. if two or three were given out in response to one edit, that would really only count as one warning in my eyes). This is most relevent when dealing with a vandal who has clearly only made a hanful of contributions ever. Often times, when dealing with very mild vandalism, rather then issue a first or second warning right off the bat, I tend to issue a welcome message, if one has not yet been given. I find this to be a softer way of sending a message that "yes, we see you, but you're welcome to stay". Thusly, I would not worry about a "poached" warning so much, unless the editor who dropped the warning also shows an obvious pattern of either over agressive warnings, or of hasty reports to AIV. In this case, a friendly note on their talk page is probably the best route to take, if only to see where the editor is philsophically. Hiberniantears 15:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you see someone biting a newbie, revert them, and tell them not to do it again. WP:BITE is an important policy. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Also a great point! Hiberniantears 16:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Shared IP

The link to Shared IP leads to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Shared_IPs. There's no section called "Shared IPs" on that page.

Can anyone please fix it? I am not sure where to find the complete policy on blocking anonymous vandals.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Which link exactly are you referring to? If you tell me, I can work it out. (also copying reply to User's talk) — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 07:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/header.
In the big green area at the top, under "Administrators", search for this:
Be aware of any implications your block reason has for other people on Shared IPs
Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni 07:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed the link to make it go to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Shared_IPs. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there so much vandalisim on weekdays?

Shouldn't there be more vandalsim on weekends and summer vacation? I saw very few reports during summer vacation, but now the vandals are back in school doing homework there should be less. Why is this? Marlith T/C 02:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Who actually confirmed that they are in school? Surely not all of the vandalisers are children and juveniles; surely some sick adults and/or seniors are involved as well. Like Charlie Manson, perhaps? Or Tom Cruise? Or Reba McEntire? Or Mel Gibson? Wilhelmina Will 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Because speds are everywhere? I dunno. HalfShadow 02:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Procrastinators looking for something else to do, perhaps. I know for sure that I used Wikipedia as a means of escape from one particular essay (as an editor, not a vandal, mind you) several years ago... That didn't turn out too well... You Can't See Me! 02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, during summer there are better things to do then vandalize, on weekdays though... Prodego talk 02:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I guess on during weekends and summer break, people have better things to do than be on their computer. But on weekdays, when there is school, like what You Can't See Me! said, they dont wanna do some homework, and use Wikipedia as an escape. And I really liked it when there was little vandalism... THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If you got your own computer at home with an Internet connection, don't you think you'd rather do something else other than vandalize Wikipedia? Chat, Second Life, blogs, myspace, YouTube, whatever. Contrast that to being sent to the computer lab at school where you're not supposed to be in chat rooms or anything else fun. Wikipedia looks like work and, unless someone is reading over your shoulder as you type, no one can tell that you're vandalizing an article. It's not that vandalizing Wikipedia is all that fun. It's that vandalizing is the fun that you can get away with during an otherwise boring time.
--Richard 02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I know. People in school are probably vandalising on school computers, safe in the knowledge that they will always be able to log in/edit anonymously at home while the school is blocked. Bowsy (review me!) 12:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"I know for sure that I used Wikipedia as a means of escape from one particular essay." That actually applies to me right now. I'm doing English Literature, wait, should be doing English Literature. James086Talk | Email 13:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Young children at school.  hmwith  talk 13:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's true, I've found that all the high schools for my alma mater's school division are usually vandalized more during the school year. Same goes for most of the sciences that are taught in high school: Biology, Physics, etc. Angry high schoolers. --DBishop1984 13:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Which, incidentally, is why I sometimes block an IP address for just an hour or two -- enough to get the kid into the next class, where they may not have net access. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Simple answer, vandals get blocked on their home computer quickly, so they have to wait for work or school where there are many computers with different IPs. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Marlith T/C 04:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you believe that vandals are this? 04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlith (talk • contribs)
I find it really depressing that when I patrol recent changes at around 10 AM EST, 9/10 of the articles I check have in fact been vandalized. It completely correlates with school being back in session. A lot of the time the pages being vandalized relate to, dare I say it, potential school projects?--iriseyestalk 03:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Here's my opinion. A lot of the vandals are in fact children from schools. Many chidren who have heard of Wikipedia use it for research. Now, many children and youth do not understand that "edit this page" does not mean you can just add some random nonsense. They might stumble onto a subject they're interested in and add their personal thoughts, visit a random article and say that Wikipedia is for nerds, visit an uncensored article and type "eww porn", are parcticing typing and type randomly onto an article, see an article about some celebrity they don't like and say that so and so sucks, etc. I find that many schools and school boards are often blocked, so some children may decide to vandalise at home. During weekends and summer break, however, people are often on vacation, going on a trip, on a weekend project, visiting family and friends, etc. The sad truth is, most people who are new to reading wikipedia are completely unaware of the policies or even why Wikipedia is editable. Hope this helps. ~AH1(TCU) 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, the schools ought to do something about vandalisim. Marlith T/C 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Many of the vandalism incidents occur just before 0900 or 1300 local time while kids wait for class, which is why IP geolocation could be useful. Here's a concept: toughen the warning/blocking cycle for IPvandals in those cases where the IP has no RDNS resolution. Where it does resolve, get the vandals in front of the VP explaining why they dragged the school's name through the mud. LeadSongDog 02:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

CFD nomination of Category:IP addresses used for vandalism

On the basis that people here might actually be interested / have something to contribute to a discussion on the point, just letting you know that an IP has nominated Category:IP addresses used for vandalism for deletion at WP:CFD and the discussion is here. BencherliteTalk 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No action on my reports

I submitted two reports today and there was no action on either report. Is there something wrong about my reports? If there is, I'd like to learn so that I can submit better reports in the future.

Sbowers3 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears in both cases the bot removed your report when it removed the report immediately above it, calling your report a "comment". It wasn't an admin declining your report. It looks like maybe you had an extraneous space in the templates, and the bot somehow took it as a comment on the previous report, rather than a separate new report, but I'm not positive. I might play with that in a little while, but want to make sure I'm not doing it when the board is backlogged. The spaces didn't affect the way the template displayed on screen, but I'm wondering if it messed up the bot's parsing. That's all I can think of, everything else about your reports looked fine.
Question for an admin: It's not going to disrupt anything if, when the board is quiet, I submit a clearly labelled as a test intentionally poorly-formatted fake report to test my theory, is it? --barneca (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I was bold, and risked admin wrath and put in a test report. The result is here. Maybe this is common knowledge, but I didn't know it. If you add spaces in the {{IPvandal}} template, it screws up the AIVbot's parsing:
Note the extra spaces also make the resulting links different, including a "12.34.567.89.html" link for some reason. Is this a bug, or a feature? Anyway, just make sure there are no extraneous spaces in your template next time and it should work fine. --barneca (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on it. After your original speculation, I resubmitted after carefully removing blanks. Both reports were handled by an admin. I didn't realize that spaces mattered. In some cases Cut and Paste adds a space so I'll have to be careful to remove it. Sbowers3 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bug ID 9213

Bug ID 9213

(Moved to a subpage)

Smile

Marlith T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith T/C 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User reported section

The user reported section seems to have disappeared, can it be restored please? DuncanHill 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Ireland

How come this edit shows that the anon IP user is (will be) blocked for 1 month but no block appears on the user's talkpage even after 40 minutes? Is there a problem or have I misread the edit summary? TIA ww2censor 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Per this, Rettetast did block the IP for a month. Admins don't always put a blocked notice on the IP's talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah ha, so how can a regular user see that a block has been put into effect if it is not posted on the user's talk page? TIA ww2censor 19:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If you mean, how can a non-admin see it, the answer is: I'm not an admin either. Anyone can see this by looking at a user's contributions (Special:Contributions/USERNAME), then following the "Block log" link right at the top of the page. (There's probably a more direct way to get to that page, but I don't know it).
  • If you mean, the block should be noted on the talk page so others can easily see that it's happened, this has been discussed before, but I can't find the thread right off. Some people think it should always be done, some thnk that in some cases, it rewards the vandal with attention, and shouldn't be done per WP:RBI. And some admins just occasionally forget. You can't trust the talk page to tell the whole story. After several needless reports to WP:AIV (where I reported an already-blocked vandal), I've learned to take the extra 10 seconds and check the block log each time. Similarly, if you get involved in vandalism reverting much, you should look at the user's talk page history for the same reason; they may have blanked some previous warnings. --barneca (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I do look at user history to see what else they have been up to and if they are BVs or just a one time vandal. I will check the block log in future. Cheers ww2censor 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

????

One report isn't going away. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just did. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I request a range block?

Hello There,

I would like to block the IP range "216.9.250.XX". It appears to be blackberry. Someone uses a blackberry constainly vandalises various articles across Wikipedia. Has been warned several times but continues. The problem is that they bounce around IPs in that range because they use a blackberry. I suspect they use this to avoid block and I suspect that they are a particular person who has already been banned as an IP (likely their home IP) and an user account twice so it seems to be the last resort I have to stop the around wikipedia vandalism that is happening, although I understand that "Range IP" bans are more complicated so I am asking advice on this. Thank you. -Kirkoconnell 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:IP addresses used for vandalism

Hey all,
After a discussion with User:Jc37, I've changed the desciption for Category:IP addresses used for vandalism to read that all IPs being used for blatant vandalism should be added to the category, for referencing when dealing with future edits by these IPs. I am currently defining "blatant vandal" as an IP that has received at least a level 2 vandalism warning. However, the description also stipulates that shared IP addresses, because of their inconsistent nature being controlled by multiple people, should not be added, as it might cause bias against them and the loss of good faith, constructive edits. I would like to get some community input into making this an official policy to keep better track of our unregistered voters. Please add your opinion over at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Category:IP addresses used for vandalism. Thanks! GlassCobra 04:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

TOR open proxies...

Please send TOR open proxies over to WP:OP in the future... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, don't. If they're making useful edits, don't do anything; stop deliberately harming the project. If they're vandalising, block them for vandalism; nobody cares where they're editing from in such cases – Gurch 00:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think J.S's only point was that editors should not report them here at WP:AIV. Whether or not TOR open proxies should be reported anywhere at all is a much bigger fish than we can fry on this talk page. -- Satori Son 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not? We don't have separate places to report dynamic, static and shared IPs and logged-in users. If a user is vandalising they should be reported here regardless of how they're editing. If they're using an open proxy for something other than vandalism then obviously it shouldn't come here... but nobody's confused enough to do that, right? – Gurch 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats right Satori... we have a fairly clear policy on open proxies... but I agree with Gurch insomuch that I certainly won't go out of my way to find them and if I do find one I'll soft-block it.(As I did with the one that prompted this section). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My report on user Molinari57

I just recently reported vandalism by User:Molinari57. As is clear from his talk page now, this may actually be (let us keep our fingers crossed) a newbie who just added one link after another to a website he is the director of. As both the other reverser and me have extended AGF to him, I hope he does not get blocked - unless he insists in adding this COI and SPAM, of course. --Pan Gerwazy 15:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ips reported as vandalism-only accounts

I have seen users using the vandalism-only account rationale when reporting anon users several times for the last month, now the thing is that I don't think that indefinitely blocking a IP address as a vandalism-only account is appropiate, considering the fact that even "static" Ips change every once in a while blocking anon vandals under this criteria will only serve to contribute to the number of unjustified autoblocks, now this my opinion but I would like to see what other admins think. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's one of these things that editors have seen and think it gives them a greater chance of achieving a block. Everytime I've looked at one of these reports I also tend to leave a message like here, with the reporting editor. Khukri 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to post about this too. An IP is not any kind of account at all, vandalism-only or otherwise. It frustrates me to see this basic lack of understanding of Wikipedia's allowance of anonymous editing. I also wonder if some of the vandal-reporting software out there automatically adds this text, in which case the software needs to be tweaked so IPs cannot be reported as accounts. Maybe we should start educating editors that use this text with a note on their talk pages? --Ginkgo100talk 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And here I thought I was the only one with this particular pet peeve. :-) - Philippe | Talk 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed this, as well as people saying "vandalism after final warning" before they have vandalized after a final warning or sometimes before they are even given a final warning. Mr.Z-man 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned this exact problem here about 6 weeks ago, and at the same time I suggested writing an essay on the vandalism, how to warn, and eventual criteria for reporting. There were only a couple of favourable responses and knowing that unless it has broad concensus, it would get MfD'd quicker than you can say it, I didn't bother. I still however thinks it's something we should have to help new editors who wish to get involved in RCP, instead of letting them fumble through, and then people like myself have to post messages like, it's not a vandalism only account, what is meant by recent final warning, please AGF and try not to put a BV or IM warning on a new talk page, etc. Khukri 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It just happened again [1], perhaps we should add a third line to the "Editors" section informing users that aren't aware of this about the issue with anon accounts not being stable. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an option in TWINKLE that users can check to report an IP as a "Vandal only account". Perhaps it should be disabled if the user is an IP address. --Hdt83 Chat 05:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That option should be disabled for IP accounts, at least I did such an implementation, perhaps I made a change that removed that, I'll look into it. →AzaToth 14:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. I've only noticed this problem with TWINKLE users. TWINKLE seems to be nice, but it also seems to make it too easy to report vandals with the wrong canned reasons. I've noticed a few TWINKLE reports where it says that the vandal was editing past final warning, when they really haven't. -- Gogo Dodo 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well; I'm sure I did that a few times when I was new to AIV/Twinkle. I would also suggest that it be slightly less easy to make an AIV report - maybe an "are you sure you want to report User:Jimbo Wales?" screen, sort of like the screen that asks about closely-timed warnings. At the moment the report sort of vanishes and the AIV screen may eventually come up, depending on the state of the servers. Such a notice might have saved me some embarrassment recently when I accidentally reported Scientizzle to AIV by clicking the ARV tab on the wrong screen - a clear case of user error, but I probably would have caught it if there had been a confirmation requirement. The screen could also ask "Has the user been properly warned?" Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion misses the forest for the trees. The issue is that for commercial reasons large ISPs are using pool IP numbers that change often, so that most IP editors on WP have no contribution history that's usable. Barring any history, editors are effectively anonymous and free to vandalize with impunity if they are so inclined. Reluctance to semi-protect articles then means they become a load on the recent changes patrolling. What I'd like to see is something like a quarter-protect level that would temporarily block anonymous pooled-IP numbers for a few minutes to throttle back the rate of vandalism, at least for recently vandalized articles. Similarly, IP-edu editors seem to bend towards being bored student vandalism just around 0850-0905 and 1250-1305 local time on weekdays. A brief daily block would not be an untoward price to reduce this problem.LeadSongDog 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I don't see how your forest tree analogy has anything to do with reporting rationales, and comes across as quite condescending. I often issue blocks for 1 hour and it's nothing new to block institution vandals for short periods of time, even down to 30 mins to allow for them to move onto their next class. Unfortunatly there are a number of the anonymous IP's that continually vandalise and we have to give longer blocks but even this does not warrant an indefinite block. The subject though is about the fact we are seeing more and more the vandalism only account comment being used for anonymous IP's reported to AIV. Whilst it is acceptable to indefinately block a registered account and reporting such an account as vandalism only, I suspect that editors have got their wires corssed (twinkle aside) and see it as a form of mantra that might get the block issued more quickly. Khukri 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I once made the same newbie error myself, so I'm a bit sensitive about it. Condescention was certainly not intended, particularly here, and I apologize if it was felt. Still, I don't think my post suggested indefinite blocks, rather just the opposite. My main point, however, was that the misuse of the vandalism only account is a symptom, not a root cause, yet the discussion focussed on curing the symptom. If a patient presents with severe headache, should the doctor just prescribe an analgesic without considering the possible serious causes (such as meningitis, concussion, stroke, or brain cancer)? Of course constructive editors get frustrated by a pattern of vandalism to their work, more so if they perceive it as not being sufficiently addressed. Yes, some portion of them will try whatever they think will get it addressed. That doesn't mean they have a thorough understanding of the problem, its solution, or how to properly report it. Some will, some won't. But addressing the root causes frees up editors' energies for better things. Some bored students will find a way to act out, but we don't need to suffer from it.LeadSongDog 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On the header there is a link to Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism. Is that similar to what you were suggesting Khukri? I wonder how much traffic it gets/how many people have actually read it before reporting. James086Talk | Email 23:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not alot I'd imagine from seeing some of the reports that come in. We are having to educate alot of editors as they go on their reporting, and warning styles. The problem is you and I know, it's generally accepted that a new talk page gets given usually at least a welcome, or a good faith warning to start and then another couple of warnings. A previous editor usually gets 2 warnings before we block, and once the page has the anon ip header stating that blocks can be instantaneous then they can be warned or blocked on sight. The guide doesn't say it's not accepted to go straight onto a new talk page with a bv or im warning, and yet some admins will block on it. I've seen more abuse being thrown around recently for throwing out someones AIV report than from the vandals themselves (OK my talk page is sprot'd these days). Other things like, has had a recent final warning, to some people recent is 3 weeks ago. We need somewhere to explain clearly, as User:LeadSongDog said above, that with anon IP's users flit from address to address and if we apply a block, fair chance it's another editor getting caught in the crossfire. There are any number of unwritten rules, and though I don't want to see a set of blocking rules written down, I'd like to see a set of case study style examples, which also show that under certain circumstance it is acceptable to shoot on sight. I'd always end up adding an extra sentence to {{uw-aiv}} but would like to see a sentence like Please read here to understand mre about reporting procedures and rationale. Khukri 07:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It's like driving I suppose. It's hard to describe how to work the clutch, it's learnt with time and it's different for each situation. There are numerous factors when blocking so it's hard to explain to new reporters what the accepted practice is. James086Talk | Email 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism

I am an editor of the Fellowship of Friends page. Wantthetruth?, another editor of the page, is persistently accusing me of vandalism even if my edits are not vandalism according to WP:Vandalism. Please see the Talk page of the article at Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends#Vandalism_.26_personal_attacks to see what I mean. Is there something I can do to stop the accusations or should I just ignore him? Thank you. Mfantoni 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the editor mfantoni refers to above, please see the current WP:COIN entry for Fellowship of Friends, I believe it is entry number 44 for a clearer picture of continued obstructive editing made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, if I understand correctly, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ..... Not all vandalism is obvious." Thank you for your time and effortWantthetruth? 01:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

An addition to this discussion, as I just edited in the FOF talk page:

Wantthetruth? Do you really think my explained deletion of second-handed information is vandalism and your unexplained reverts (not even with a summary) are not vandalism? I have talked about your unexplained edits more than once (see the FOF's article talk page), and you did not even answered my comments in the talk page. Instead, you put a phrase on "reasonable edits" referring to yours, as if other's oppinion were not worth been even considered. If I ask whether the words you put in Mr. Goldman's mouth were or were not violating the terms of an out-of-court settlement, is because I have already read what it is said on the archives about this. But you do not answer and warn me in my own page (not in my talk page). Changing what I put in my own page, which is mine, not everybody's, can be considered vandalism of your part, and as such I will address to some editor's talk pages. Hope you calm down a little bit and start trying to follow WP guidelines for editing. Baby Dove 05:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends" 66.72.4.20 05:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum for this type of discussion. This is where administrators investigate vandalism reports on the main page not on it's talk page, and if it were reported I'd imagine you would be re-directed to WP:DR though I see it has already been added to WP:COIN. Khukri 09:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New accounts that stop after vandalising/experimenting

I recently reverted an edit by the account Anders227. On checking the contributions, I noticed that the vandalism/experimentation had stopped and that the talk page has warnings. In such cases, do we just leave things alone in the hope that this was just experimenting and more constructive edits will follow, or not? And in terms of watching the account to see if vandalism/experimentation returns, do we just trust that others will spot such behaviour later? Carcharoth 09:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To me it looks like a throw away account, AGF has been assumed with three warnings of which two were ignored. I personally would just leave it and anything more now, final warning then it would be an indefinite as a vandalism only account. Khukri 09:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
My take on it is that AIV is for taking immediate action to stop vandals who are causing a current threat to the encyclopedia. I take a quick look at the user's current edits and the probability that the user will continue such vandalism in the near future. It isn't an exact science, but there are cases where someone vandalizes and then walks away. Those accounts don't need blocks to stop an immediate threat. On the other hand, there are users who show a persistent pattern of vandalism with no constructive edits. Again, this isn't an exact science, and I just realized I may be contradicting myself. In any case, what Khukri said above is correct; they should be given a final warning before a block, unless it's the case of a high-speed vandal. Clear as mud. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do if a user is a probable vandal, and I don't have time to warn?

I arrived to this page through an automatic arv tool, and now see that it's not the proper way to report suspicious vandalism. What is the correct procedure when detecting a probable/possible ongoing vandal?Diego 22:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Diego, I posted a reply on your talk page. GlassCobra 23:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Agent doberman

I just reverted this link spam, then went to post a warning and there's already a "last warning". This user caught my attention first by spamming my personal forum. Seems to certainly be an agenda here. Thanks! Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 14:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When does final mean final?

I see this all the time: A final warning, some vandalism, another final warning, sometimes even yet another final warning, sometimes the warnings start over at level 1, as if the warning editor did not look at the talk page to see the previous "final" warnings. (I don't use Twinkle but perhaps it just puts a warning on the user's page and the editor doesn't even see the vandal's talk page?) I've issued reports to AIV for vandalism after final warning but the admin rejected it because the final warning was too long before the new vandalism. I accept the principle that vandals can reform and should not automatically be blocked when their bad behavior was long ago, but how long ago is enough that the final warning should be ignored? And if enough time has elapsed, maybe we could use a bot to downgrade the final warning based on good behavior. The problem is that sometimes a vandal might not even edit for a week or two, then his first edit is vandalism after a final warning two weeks ago. He has not reformed, he just hasn't been around to commit vandalism.

Here is a typical example: User talk:209.232.148.107 this month has a "final" warning, then an "only" warning, then an informal warning - "you should be blocked, I think, but that will not help" - then a level 2 warning. Obviously the "final" and "only" warnings were not what they said they were. I've looked through the contribs back through September. I think all of them are vandalism. But if I submit an AIV report, the admin probably will say that there is no final warning - the most recent is a level 2 and the "final" warning is stale.

My point I guess is that final should mean final, otherwise, people won't believe a "final" warning. Why should they believe it when their talk page is full of final warnings that did not lead to a block even after repeated vandalism? Sbowers3 12:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You do have a valid point there, with vandalism not getting carried here, and people ending up with a heap of final warnings. The guideline that I use, is that when vandalism occurs, and that person has a full page of warnings, but no {{uw-v4}} yet, I give them a {{uw-v4}}, regardless of the levels of the previous warnings. If there is an uw-v4 after a at least 3 other warnings, and they commit vanalism again, I bring them to the noticeboard. I'm not an admin though, and I would appriciate to hear what an admin thinks of it. Martijn Hoekstra 13:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that there should be some bot that after a certain number of days of non-vandalism edits, downgrades the warning. I don't really know if that is possible, but that's what I would suggest. -- Imperator3733 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Sbowers3. "Final" warnings are becoming meaningless. Threats that are not implemented are soon ignored. For example, User talk:204.39.82.41 shows three "last warnings" in three days, 15-18 October, and then immediately a polite message from VoABot II saying "consider using the sandbox"; then two "please stops" and a fourth "final warning".
I have two suggestions:
1) that vandalism-reverting bots should take account of previous warning history, and in particular should not follow a final warning with a lesser message; and
2) that any editor who issues a final warning should make it his business to watch that vandal's contributions for several days and do an AIV report as soon as any further vandalism occurs. - JohnCD 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't answer for all admins, but these are my thoughts. ip addresses can be used by more than the one editor; vandal a) gets a stiff warning and decides to find something else to amuse themselves with - new editor b) makes a mistake (or gets mistaken for a vandal) and gets blocked for a day. Bit unfair on the new editor, who may have turned out to be valuable contributor but got bitten and never returned. For a registered user, WP:AGF means you really have to consider that the vandalism is never going to cease. SPA's and vandalism only (generally the really abusive stuff) accounts generally get indef blocked pretty fast, other accounts get plenty of warnings and then increasing block tariffs. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and blocking an account for a minor infraction that then goes ip vandal crazy does not help the encyclopedia. Blocks are actions of last resort, not first response.
Notwithstanding the above, every admin who works the AIV board owes a heap of gratitude for all the vandal patrollers and other folk who take the time and effort to report these incidents. LessHeard vanU 19:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I take LessHeard vanU's point that "Blocks are actions of last resort, not first response"; but I think we should be wary of using the strong words of uw-vandalism4: "This is the last warning... The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing" unless we really mean it. Threats repeated but not carried out soon get ignored. JohnCD 20:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would do any harm to remove old warnings from user talk pages though. \maybe archive them so that patrollers could see that there was a lot of vandalism coming from that account but that editors on shared IP's wouldn't notice. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My system has evolved into something fairly complex, which doesn't lend itself to automated processes, or to rapid revert-warn-revert-warn sessions. I look at the contributions to see if there's reason to believe (based on articles edited, and how long the IP has been contributing) the IP is shared. If the first contributions ever from that IP were 4 days ago, stopped after a level 4 warning, and resumed today, the odds are really good this is not a heavily shared IP, and you're dealing with the same editor. If the articles being vandalized are similar to the ones being vandalized right before the previous warning, I'll assume it's the same person and report it to AIV with no additional warning. If you note the similarity in your report, most admins at AIV will block, even if the previous warning is stale. If it's been a day and there is no article similarity, lately I've been compromising, and I leave a new uw-vandalism4 warning, right away, along with a short note saying that I'm assuming it's someone else, but that due to the long history of vandalism from that IP, I'm getting right to the point. I'm hoping that if I just bit a newcomer (who, by vandalizing, isn't 100% innocent anyway), they'll at least understand the abruptness of the warning, and by explaining myself, the multiple "final" warnings in a row don't make us look quite so incompetent. If it's been more than a day, I sort of have a sliding scale; the longer it has been since the previous final warning, the lower down the totem pole I go, until after a couple of weeks i restart at level 1 (again, assuming it isn't the same articles being vandalized).
As for archiving, I've been experimenting with using User:Barneca/Temps/wiphat and User:Barneca/Temps/wiphab on all warnings older than about 2-3 months. It looks like this:
It might make sense to archive warnings more recent than 2-3 months, I don't know. --barneca (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I like your approach, barneca. I particularly like the "archiving" of the old warnings. I know I've come across some user talk pages like what Sbowers3 describes and admit I've been puzzled by them. Multiple final warnings? I use Twinkle to revert vandalism a fair bit and it always lets me choose the level of warning. The only thing it does is go to the user's talk page and open it up. All the previous warnings are clearly visible and unless someone is not paying any attention at all (I can't even imagine how it could occur), the warnings are all visible. One situation has occurred a few times where the reason for multiple warnings was they were all given very quickly for several different vandalisms in a row. Sometimes that can get confusing which is the latest. Pigman 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


I like your aproach too and will start using it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I lack the patience for administration and admire all of you good folks who deal with this sort of thing. However, I fear that as with other aspects of this delightful organ, there is a lack of consistency that sometimes makes deciding how to spend one's valuable time difficult. I have reported two persistent vandals of late with multiple last warning's since their last block and next-to-no record of constructive editing. User talk:216.75.131.205 was blocked for six months (hurrah!). User talk:194.83.245.252‎, admittedly a slightly less repulsive character, was blocked (again) for 31 hours (boo). I mean to offer no criticism of the admins who undertook these thankless tasks. However, I need to be honest. Firstly, I can see no purpose whatsoever in offering multiple last warnings. (And I have read the thread above). Any anon IP with a last warning within the last six months should be immediately blocked if they sin again. Period. They can always ask for it to be lifted if they feel aggrieved. In other words I think archiving after a few months is a terrible idea. Secondly, and quite candidly, I am not going to waste my time reporting persistent vandals here if they are not going to be given a punative block. Does anyone really think a persistent vandal cares if they get blocked for 31 hours? I suspect it as a badge of honour in the vandal community. Maybe I haven't seen the messages that are received here from delighted anons who thank us for not blocking their IDs because of the nutter who spent the last few weeks on their computer. As I said, I lack patience with this nonsense. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Warnings required again after a block?

Situation: a user is blocked after ignoring a final warning. The block expires, the same user goes about vandalizing again. Can the user be reported here straight away, given that technically they have ignored a recent final warning (the one just before their block)? Or does another final warning have to be posted and ignored before they can be reported again? Thomjakobsen 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It sorta depends on the circumstance. If the user is an IP user, I generally want to see them get warned again, because the IP may have reassigned to someone different who's also a twerp. If it's an account, or if the vandalism is identical to before the block, I'm willing to look at it. - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that makes sense for an IP. But for a registered user, there's no problem listing them again? I was just wondering how pedantically the "final warning" clause is adhered to. The account in question is JFC1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), short block expired and he's blanking his high school page again. Thomjakobsen 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd have acted on that. Looks like somebody already got him as a vandal-only account though. - Philippe | Talk 22:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

31 hours for a block

I was just wondering why 31 hours (or a day and 8 hours) became a blocking duration. Is there something in the archives or on some page I can find the answer? bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember seeing somewhere it was so they would likely have to sit out an entire calendar day, whereever they were; if they were blocked Tuesday morning where they were, It would be Wednesday evening when it expired, and (assuming they were at school), all of Wednesday would be off limits. I can't recall where I saw that, it may have been an answer to a similar question a few months ago on this very page. --barneca (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That's how I view it. It's just longer than 24 hours, so they can't come back and vandalize same time tomorrow. —C.Fred (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "final warning"

I just blocked an IP that vandalized after a level 3 warning but which received no level 4 warning. Someone made the comment that the IP had not received a final warning, "only" a level 3 warning. My understanding is that a "final warning" is any warning that notifies a user that they will be blocked if their behavior continues, which includes both level 3 and level 4. Is that how others interpret it? --Ginkgo100talk 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Maybe the AIV instruction box should be changed to clarify what's meant by last warning. WODUP 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The first set of instructions on the AIV main page is entitled "Editors:" and is directed to those who are submitting new reports. The second set of instructions entitled "Admins:" does not mention any restrictions on blocking based on the level of warning, and nor should it.
The official policy that is applicable to us as blocking admins is covered in detail at WP:BLOCK, which states "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking" and "Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity [to adjust their behaviour] do not require further warning." We request that editors provide multiple warnings primarily to comply with WP:BITE and WP:AGF, but whether to block or not after a level-3 is clearly within our discretion. -- Satori Son 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on changing my own practices, but want to make sure all editors share the same understanding of a "final warning". --Ginkgo100talk 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, and I hope it didn't sound like I was lecturing you! If so, very sorry. I also just wanted to make things clear to editors who might have disagreed with your block. But I also don't think we need to make any changes to the AIV instructions. -- Satori Son 00:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably easier to explain that we will block after a level 3 than it is to have more editors report users who really shouldn't be blocked yet (which is what would happen if we changed the instruction); there are already enough of those. :) WODUP 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"+" sign gone?

Sorry if I may have missed the reason for changes to the project page but what's happened to the "+" sign at the top of the page that allowed me to post admin intevention against vandalism? Now I have to click on "edit" in the user reported section and I often get into edit conflict as a result. Is it possible to revert back to the previous style please? --Meekywiki 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it was accidentally removed here. I've restored it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Meekywiki 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)



What do the admins make of this case (not a report)

Hello All - I've been keeping an eye on User talk:208.67.142.50 for quite a while - and the user has received numerous (numerous!) final warnings. My intuition has been that the contribs have never crossed the threshold of meriting a report here - but I'm also troubled by the consistent damage coming from that IP - is my intuition right? Thanks! de Bivort 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... they were blocked twice in October. One of the things to keep in mind with school IP's is that you may often be dealing with entirely different bored kids each time. The same kid may be making the same vandalism over a period of time, but you may have different editors in the mix who are trying to be constructive. Hiberniantears 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is the purpose the schoolblock—a soft block that allows registered users to edit while blocking anonymous editors. The Gary Paulsen edits over two days might have given me cause to block, but they aren't fresh now. And with IPs, I do tend to assume an abundance of good faith—at least until I'm convinced otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There comes a point with some schools where you realise that the warnings have no effect, and the next time the IP edits it is going to be vandalism, and it'll be soon. A check through the contribs history shows no good edits, ever, so I have given it a month's preventative schoolblock. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Could some one with more time please take a look at this person Special:Contributions/Zana Dark. They have been vandalising pages in the last few minutes. If they could be reported that would be appreciated. I have to log off. Ozdaren 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by someone else. People generally don't look for reports on this page, so put your report on the main page in future. Hut 8.5 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the administrators and the helper bots are doing too good a job, so the main page is usually blank, making some reporters confused as to what they should do. Perhaps adding an "add new reports here" line (or even better, a link to an edit page, like in the help\reference desks), and an example report to stay on the page permanently, are in order? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The sample reports aren't visible, but if you edit the page, there is a sample report shown in a comment. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my original intent. All I was doing was bringing it to the attention of someone with more time than me to address the situation. I was signing off and didn't have the time to provide the details required on the main page. The last comment does seem like a good idea though. Any how thanks for the comments. Ozdaren 11:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism!

I don't know if this was an actual article but this certainly is vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem_8 Daniel Musto 03:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place for you to report this, see WP:SPEEDY for various templates to use on the article instead. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting already blocked users for harassment on their own talk pages?

Greetings AIV folk! There are two questions currently on HBC AIV helperbot3's talk page on this subject, and I wanted to see if anyone here had any guidance. Basically, in both cases, reporters were trying to list vandalism reports against already blocked users who were harassing/vandalizing further on their own talk pages, but the reports were removed by the helperbot(s), because, after all, the users in question are/were blocked. What is the correct place to put this kind of report?

My thoughts are two-fold - either WP:AN/I, since this would seem to qualify as an "incident" that needs admin attention, or, possibly better, WP:RFPP, since semi- or full-protecting the offending user's talk page is (as I understand it) the typical remedy that would be applied. Is there any preference among the admins here? Somewhere else entirely that I'm not aware of? Or does some change to the bots need to be contemplated to deal with this situation? Guidance and suggestions would be greatly appreciated! —Krellis (Talk) 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In these cases the best bet is usually to let the vandal get bored. Protecting the talk page prevents the user from making an unblock request, or responding to any comments, so generally this does not happen, unless the user is causing real disruption. In this case I would suggest leaving them alone, and they will very quickly get bored if they get no response. Raising the issue either at ANI or RFPP is fine. Cheers TigerShark 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Try not to feed the troll whenever possible. Blocked vandals who post "OMG Wikipedia sucks it is SO GAY AND Kusma is a GAY LOSER!!!111" are essentially harmless and don't disrupt anything, there's not much point in spending time on reporting them. Click "unwatch" and forget about them unless they start abusing the {{unblock}} mechanism. Kusma (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I know the usual feeling is to stop vandals, but once they're trapped in their own personal sandbox of one page, a page which is usually of zero importance, do we really care? Continued reports and fuss only give the impression that they're having a strong impact on the Wikipedia community's standard operation; simply ignoring them will get across the more effective message: you're not damaging anything, might as well go away. In the few cases where something needs to be done, just get an admin's attention by any of the usual venues. That's my take on it, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Tried five times to post:

but each time is an edit conflict. Can we have the bots report somewhere else please? Ben MacDui(Talk)/(Walk) 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When you make a report, click on the + tab at the top of the page to add a new section. This way you never get any conflicts with anyone. Just be careful not to add anything in the "Subject/headline" section, since that creates a new heading and confuses the HelperBots. The only drawback is that (since the subject is blank) there is no edit summary, but the benefit of not having 5 edit conflicts outweights that minor cost. --barneca (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You could get a script to do the reporting for you - WP:TWINKLE has one of the better ones. It makes the report so fast it hardly ever gets edit conflicts. Anti-vandalism bots report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 rather than the main AIV page, so if you're getting edit conflicts with bots its the helperbots cleaning up rather than anti-vandal bots adding reports. Hut 8.5 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the tips. Seems incredible that after a year here I didn't know about the '+ tab' trick - but then there is very little reason to use it for that purpose elsewhere I suppose. It might be worth putting on the project page? The helper bots kept removing the 'User reported' heading as well btw. Ben MacDuiTal)/Walk 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the problem myself. What I do now is, before I hit Save Page I highlight what I just added and hit Ctrl-C (Copy), just in case. Solves the problem right there. --Blanchardb 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that I can do, but by the time it was repasted & the vandals ID copied into the edit summary there was a conflict again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben MacDui (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

user:Strothra

I put this on the page but it got deleted by a bot. This kid keeps editing my user and talk pages. I wish to retire but he keeps doing this stuff. So I can't. --LtWinters 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is logging back onto Wiki to add personal attacks against Wiki users and the project onto his user page and talk page - a clear violation of WP:USER. I have reverted this a number of times and given him WP:NPA warnings. I've brought the complaint to WP:WQA. The user should further note that this is not the page he wants. --Strothra 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


LtWinters, you are blocked for disruption. You can edit your talk page, but not to continue your disruption. If you persist, your block could be extended and your user page protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by bot-uploading from nl:wikipedia to commons

I nl:gebruiker:Havang bot-uploaded an image to commons, but the texte page was infected by an image coming from en: wikipedia, [2]. Please, check this user and his vandalistic activities. See the contents and the history of the page vandalised at [3]. 81.207.177.214 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisim Info template

I suggest that we place the {{Wdefcon|prefix=User talk:ILovePlankton/}} template right under the large green one on the top to show how much attention is needed. Do you agree. If so, I will do so. The template looks like this

Marlith T/C 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything but that last ugly box that got removed. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No thanks. The size of the backlog is the only reliable indication of how much attention is needed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I see, thanks! Marlith T/C 01:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User RogerBurks and Mercy Corps

Can you please stop User:RogerBurks from editing Mercy Corps? He's gone a bit nuts. --Busy Stubber 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. User:RogerBurks appears to be being WP:BOLD and editing the article in good faith. Looking at his last 10 or so edits he's attempting to remove ambiguity and statements that could be construed as unnecessary self-promotion of the article. User:Hu12 keeps reverting the edits but never provides a clear rationale for why. I think User:Hu12 needs to be informed to not bite the newcomers. --Mperry 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The descriptions of any change I made were stated in the Edit summary. RogerBurks is no newcomer, this account has been active since, 3 February 2006, over a year and a half.
→ See also:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Mercy_Corps_COI_spam
Hope that sheds some light on the long term nature of the problem that wikipedia faces. For well over a year half the sole purpose of these accounts (and I'm sure others) were here for the sole purpose of promoting Mercy Corps. --Hu12 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

VoABot

Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but what's the point of a bot that reports users who have vandalized twice? What are we supposed to do with that? Lara❤Love 13:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, but all the reports were correct. I have no idea why it said (2+..) here, but it does seem a bit pointless saying that. -- Jack 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've come across at least two cases where the editor was reported after two edits. I don't recall the other case, but User:Eng rashid (contribs) was reported for edits to an article he or she had created and was adding on to. I've reported the bot to WP:AN/I. --健次(derumi)talk 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to get VoA to address this issue for nearly two days KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot has been blocked indef until the issue is fixed. [4]. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Since it is not a bug, and the bot is really helpful, I wonder whether this block is justified. -- ReyBrujo 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait, misread the comment. Withdrawing comment. -- ReyBrujo 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I had assumed the idea was that the person would keep vandalizing, and that, by the time an admin looked at the request, those 2+ edits might be something more like 4 or 5... but it wasn't working out that way, most times. Was an interesting idea to try, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
VoA appears to have corrected the issues and VoABot II is back to kicking vandal ass. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Luna: In my experience, most (individual) vandals don't do more than two unconstructive edits; they're merely curious about how WP works, rather than outright malicious.
I did a cursory check of VoABot II's edits, and didn't see any false positives or premature reporting. It all looks good. --健次(derumi)talk 07:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV Helperbot mistake?

With this edit, HBC AIV helperbot4 removed 198.237.124.2 from the list, without indicating so in the edit summary. I re-added the IP, and it was promptly blocked by User:Dreadstar. Just letting you know this bot may be removing reports which require action, without action being taken. — Swpbtalk.edits 20:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take this up with the bot operator. Hut 8.5 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice there's a space in the second entry... *{{IPvandal|208.108.81.21}} vs * {{IPvandal|198.237.124.2}}. If the regex used to remove reports isn't expecting that space, it might be a problem. Nothing else jumps out at me, right away. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing so complicated, looks like it's just an edit conflict. It's strange, this seems to be happening more recently, though I don't know why, as nothing has really changed in the bots. ST47 and I have both looked into it, and there's not really any way we can change the codepath to be quicker from pageload -> page save, so it just happens. I wonder if there's something we can do in the way the code saves to avoid ECs, and just try again after one instead of overwriting like that... —Krellis (Talk) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How did this happen?

Re: 24.244.192.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I reported this IP to WP:AIV since it was starting up right where it left off six months ago, after a six month block: [5]

The bot removed it seconds later because it thought it was already blocked: [6]

But that block was 6 months ago: [7]

Obviously block has been lifted: [8]

First, I suggest another 6 month block, if not longer (can't report to AIV as the bot removes it before an admin sees it). Second, can someone explain what's going on? If it truly was a 6 month block (as opposed to 180 days), the account should have been blocked for another 2 days. Why does the bot think it's blocked? --barneca (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The block is still in place and doesn't expire until the 22nd of November. Blocked users can still edit their own talk pages. You can request semiprotection at WP:RFPP if it carries on. Hut 8.5 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am a complete idiot. --barneca (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about IP vandalism

I've been monitoring the Goldeneye 007 page for the past few months, and every so often someone adds

The Multiplayer mode has been dominated by a group of four die hard players from the east coast of Western Australia since late 2000. The group, also known as "Team Bond" (TB), has travelled to Japan twice and destroyed the competition winning both Tokyo series in 2000 and 2002. The team of players consisting of Janus Special Forces, Ouromov, Janus Marine and Helicopter Pilot have continued to command local competition since late 2003. According to distributed emails, they are holding a 10 year Anniversary competition in their home town of Perth, Western Australia in early December 2007. "Team Bond" hold the self proclaimed title of Bond Champions of the World and welcome challengers via entry form through emailing goldeneye_tournament@hotmail.com

Now, the page was semi-protected for several weeks, but the vandals have returned. It is ALWAYS the exact same text, but by different IPs which have never been warned before. Would we be allowed to skip straight to {{subst:uw-vand4}}/block them immediately, or do we have to go through the process of 4 warnings of an IP we know is someone who has done it before? mattbuck (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In my humble, non-admin opinion, you would certainly be "allowed" to leave a {{uw-vandal4im}} tag on their talk page, with an additional 1 sentence summary "returning vandal posting same material from different IP", and 99% of the admins handling AIV would consider that a legit final warning. Most would probably block with no warning at all, if you explain the situation briefly with a similar sentence in the block request. However, lately they almost always post only once or twice from each IP, so AIV isn't really going to help much. Frankly, your best bet is to watchlist, revert, and ignore, and if the vandalism gets too heavy, request page protection at WP:RFPP (as was necessary last month). So far this month, that level of vandalism probably wouldn't warrant page protection; it's a low-level irritant that we kind of have to live with. For what it's worth, I'll add it to my watchlist. --barneca (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the best avenue for this would be adding that e-mail address (likely the most important part of the repeated spam) to WP:BLACKLIST. Then they would be completely unable to save that edit ever again. I've gotten very good results with dynamic IP spammers that way. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I tried it and it didn't work. Not sure why. I've had success with the meta blacklist but haven't tried it here. Maybe e-mail addresses don't work. I would have to investigate further at a later time. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The email address is not "clickable" and I don't think they work on the blacklist. I may be a little out of process but I have no problem with blocking someone who is obviously returning under another IP but if they only edit once that won't help. --Herby talk thyme 15:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it - longer term s prot seems the best way for now, range blocking would mean some collateral I guess --Herby talk thyme 15:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Help!

(section courtesy blanked at request of subject, on OTRS ticket #2007120610001354) - Mark 09:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot AIV help

Hi. Why would a helper bot want to advise me, as the submitter of a serial anon IP vandal to AIV, that it belongs to an educational institution? Are they to be allowed to get away with persistent vandalism because of that? Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 11:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite actually. We have serious problems here with vandalism from educational institutions IP's, so generally speaking, we {{schoolblock}} these IP's, often with more severe lengths than a normal IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"This is a shared IP" can easily become a relevant piece of information, in any number of circumstances. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking vandalism too personally?

I have a concern that I've noticed amongst some recent changes patrollers as of late. It feels like a subset of Wikipedia editors take vandalism way too personally and, therefore, are quick to WP:BITE. This might mean jumping to a v4 warning right away for infractions that appear to just be experimenting or clueless new user actions. I've run into this situation twice now in the last two or three weeks where a user has told me that s/he has such little tolerance for vandalism that they just, basically, attack the vandals back.

Has anyone else been noticing this trend? It really concerns me, not because we're being aggressive against blatant vandals, but because we're being aggressive against people who just don't have an exact hang of Wikipedia. Metros (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I share your concern. We have a number of different vandalism warnings for a reason, and too often I'm seeing what is probably just "new user error" being hit with the 4th level warning. Let's keep our eyes on this one... - Philippe | Talk 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear, amount of times I've seen recently 4im warnings being used on a clean talk page is getting annoying. The problem is once the warning has been issued, we can't really trump that with a this is your double dare final warning, and makes a mockery of the system and puts us in a bad position. We either continue this farce by blocking, and perpetuate the problem. Or we undermine the editor {who usually just needs to know better), remove the warning and give a lower one whereby the vandal then thinks we're soft on vandalism. Im my opinion even though vandalism and the issuing of warnings is subjective, everything we really know about warnings is handed down from one editor to another, usually two warnings, lvl1 for a new page and all the stuff. What we need is at minimum an essay if not a guideline with case studies of how warnings should be issued. I don't mind starting somthing but a one man show never goes far round here, so would need other input. Any thoughts? Khukri 20:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking from the perspective of a new admin, I'm startled at the number of inadequately warned/aggressively warned/IP's not recently warned/not really vandalism reports to AIV. I second the suggestion of case studies in a tutorial that we can link back to for over-enthusiastic or overly aggressive vandal fighters. Acroterion (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I tend to notice the opposite far more frequently. Truly blatant vandals will get a couple of t1 warnings, then one or two t2s, etc. even though the vandalism is obvious. Not to say that the harsh warnings don't happen, they do. Wizardman 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a level 4im, is warranted only when they replace entire articles with "fuck wikipedia" or something like that because they do not deserve to be warned 4 times for vandalism like that Alexfusco5 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I share the same opinion. If somebody adds "Brian is awesome" to the top of a page or something like that I'm more apt to put a low level warning on the page. When someone replaces the entire George W. Bush article with "Bush is teh sux0r$ and eats dONKEY dICK" or something to that effect I'm more apt to jump to the higher level warnings. Elhector (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember, especially when dealing with outsiders, that first impressions are important. We can leave these people with varying impressions. Would we rather they wander off thinking, "Gee, I shouldn't disturb a project so many people are hard at work on," or, "Man, those Wikipedia people are a bunch of dicks, I'm gonna go back and show them who's boss tomorrow!" Yes, such edits are vandalism, and yes, they need to stop. But stopping them in the most confrontational manner possible is only going to piss people off, depriving us of potential contributors and instead encouraging them to return and continue disrupting our work. Seems a losing proposition, to me. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of attitude I'm talking about. I'm concerned about editors having "hostile periods" or "not having enough time to check each and every edit." By just jumping to conclusions like that, we could be scaring away potentially good editors. Especially on shared IPs where good editors mix with bad editors. Metros (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What I find to be a real problem is how many times Blatant Vandals get warned. I have Drafted an essay regarding this here. Input will be appreciated and help will be appreciated Alexfusco5 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Along this line of discussion, it is not always evident how many warnings a user may have been given (either recently or in the past). Sometimes vandals simply remove warnings from their talk page. Personally, when I've seen this happen, I have restored the warnings. However, I was once vehemently chastised per WP:DRC. (Yes, I know it's just an essay and not a policy or guideline, but that didn't stop the user from pushing the issue against me.) What is the official stance regarding a user removing vandalism warnings from their own talk page?...and how effectively can their warnings be tracked if you have to review the edit history on their talk page? See discussion here ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
My understanding from WP:UP#CMT is that it's quite OK to remove comments & warnings from your own user talk page. It may be frowned upon, but not against the rules, and not vandalism, though I've seen a user get a final warning for doing so. Vandal-fighting's a tricky business & I'll admit to being inconsistent at times. But I do try to go up through the scale. I don't think I've ever started with a level 4, but I do sometimes jump straight to a 2 or 3 for very blatant & non-accidental vandalism from named accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canthusus (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I also had a go at an essay a while ago. Comments are welcome and if there's anything in there that you want, Alexfusco5, it's all GFDL-licensed :-) Tonywalton Talk 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, admit the usage of 4th level warning if I see the vandalism is pretty obvious. Take for example this one when I warned this IP with a 4th level warning. The person responded like this [9] and this [10] and finally this [11]. No regrets there †Bloodpack† 14:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It has also been my experience that persistent IP vandals seem to be handled too gently. I routinely go to IP user pages to issue a warning for some vandalism or other and find that they already have three, four, five consecutive "last warnings" in place, no blocks, and a list of contributions that may be brief, but is 100% vandalism. And I wonder if the editors before me were merely too lazy to post on WP:AIV, or if they posted and the IP got off on one technicality or other, by spacing out their vandalisms one every three or four days. Or whatever. I see no reason to assume that (eventual) good-faith contributions are encouraged by permissiveness towards IPs who waste the time of good contributors and actively damage the credibility of the project with their puerilities. Writing "Brian is awesome" at the top of the page may seem to be less aggressive in its defacing, but for the two hours it stands in the article, for every page view it gets, you can be sure that it encourages readers to think "Wow, the news is right, Wikipedia really is bullshit." And good-faith contributors have little incentive to make AIV reports if they feel they are participating more in an IP daycare than an effective means of stemming the tide of vandalism. Ford MF (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that many vandal fighters (possibly myself included), often violate WP:BITE due to frustration after several hours of combating vandals non-stop. There are times where I have bitten new users who were just unfamiliar with the encyclopedia, usually because I mistook their genuine efforts to help as vandalism. Of course, there are many cases where those who appear to be confused and unfamiliar with the encyclopedia are just vandals. --Sharkface217 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/Archive_8&oldid=1147945106"