This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I'm concerned this page might be working TOO well. The latest report on it was blocked by 3 administrators, with only 1 minute of separation (00:49, 26 Jun 2005, 00:50, 26 Jun 2005, 00:51, 26 Jun 2005). If this trend continues, we'll have things like 10 or more different admins blocking the same user at the same time. -- cesarb 00:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The header on this page suggests that editors use the {{test4}} warning before reporting vandals here. I'm not sure that this is advisable, as a non-admin cannot follow up on this warning. Before I was an admin I would always stop and seek admin assistance after test3. JeremyA 1 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
I dunno about reg. users using test4. Personally, I am okay with it, but it's up to you guys (I'm an admin so I use test4 anyways) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 1 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)
Adminship is about having extra tools. If non-admins can't be trusted with test4, they can't be trusted with test 1-3 either. Can't you place a test4 either if you're going away from the computer and nobody might notice the next vandalism and administer the block? Let's not limit vandal fighters further. -- W( t) 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
test4 is troublesome for use by non-admins because the time between a report to AIV and actual blocking by an administrator can easily be hours, depending on administrator availability. During that time the vandal in question can make quite a number of edits, making the "next time you block" part of the template a very empty threat. As people should not make empty threats, test4 is less useful for non-admins than, say, test3, which simply warns of blocking at some indeterminate time in the future. Collabi 11:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I will not block someone who has not yet received the test4 template, not to mention all the others. I would suggest that all users apply this template before bringing the case here. -- causa sui talk 03:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't mind if people post here after they've given out 3 warnings, culminating with ((test3)). An admin can then monitor the situation and issue a ((test4)), if needed, and then block the vandal quickly if he continues. It's a matter of judgement really: if a vandal has clearly ignored all warnings up to ((test3)), and it's likely that they will continue immediately and will have to be warned a fourth time, why not bring this to the attention of admins right after the ((test3))? However, if the vandalism happens only sporadically, over the course of several hours, days, or longer, then please warn with ((test4)) first and perhaps even wait until further vandalism does indeed occur before posting here. As I see it, AIV is basically about fast responses, and thus has two uses: when someone can be blocked immediately (five instances of vandalism, four warnings), or when instances of vandalism and warnings are happening in quick succession (what some people call "in real time"). -- MarkSweep ✍ 04:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be considered obsolete? After all, there already is a Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page. ‡ Jarlaxle July 1, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
I noticed over at Village Pump (proposals) that there is a great tool (displayed above) that lets you give a {{ test1}} warning by entering the username to warn in the box. However, didn't see any discussion there of where to put such a tool. I know that when I do RC patrol, I keep AIAV open in Firefox (I have to have some tab open, why not AIAV), and I thought it might be useful to include this tool here for ease of use. Perhaps it could be changed to give a {{ test4}} warning instead (i.e., you list the user here and give a test4 at the same time) or if it wouldn't clutter things up too much, all five test warnings could be included here (as I understand it, a different box would be needed for each.) What do others think? -- Essjay · Talk 15:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
If you use messages preset in your user subspace, you could add a similar box to your user/talk page and input your subpage instead of the test message.
I was thinking of it here because my system is usually to copy the username (or more often, IP) of the offender from the history of the vandalized page, click over to this tab, paste it into the {{user|Username}} template, paste it into the edit summary box, and click save. With it already present on the clipboard, it would be two more clicks to automatically test4 them from here. I don't know if others use a similar system, but I thought it might be helpful.
Another thought that comes to mind is using something similar on the block pages for admins to auto test5 any user they block. -- Essjay · Talk 16:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking, except in a place that's more visable, like AIAV (because you don't really want everyone running off to your subspace to warn people, do you?). I figured AIAV was a good place, since it's fairly well known and well used, and would be convenient for everyone. Really, I think just test4 would work, becasue that is the most relevant to AIAV (and maybe test5 for the blocking admin, and like I said, maybe that should be on the blockpage). -- Essjay · Talk 16:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I hope those boxes aren't a drain on the servers! I did something similar in one of my sandboxes, and created one for welcoming new users (one of my hobbies). I still think a test4 box would be useful on AIAV; does anyone have a specific objection to trying it there for a couple of days? -- Essjay · Talk 17:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The box looks good, but it could use a pull-down menu with the warnings, and perhaps short descriptions of them, on the left. The User talk: could probably be assumed. And it could also use the routine to check usernames while typing/pasting. My concern is that by making warnings too easy, we might find a lot of newbie pages being filled with them. ProhibitOnions 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to complain about the page for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco. The article is full of false accusations and insulting language. The mayor is NOT gay and he certainly has earned his current position. Please review the article and make the appropriate changes.
The AIAV works great, except when it comes to school IPs and other public machines. Admins are reluctant to block such IPs, and they often become a haven for vandals. In some cases (such as the New South Wales High Schools: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), over one hundred warnings and numerous short-term blocks have been issued by admins, yet anonymous users of these machines continue vandalizing pages with impunity.
I understand the reluctance to ban anonymous contributions from an IP possibly shared by legitimate users. However, when a machine is the source of constant vandalism, is it too much to ask legitimate users to spend the 30 seconds needed to register? I'm sure almost all serious Wiki contributors are registered users anyway; I don't think I'm going overboard by expecting all contributors using public PCs to log in. OwenX 20:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I still don't understand why we don't report vandalism to ISPs, or in the case of schools, to school administrators. -- Essjay · Talk 06:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
So if the IP is blocked....then the students won't be able to edit from that machine for a little while. They can still use Wikipedia as a a resource though, isn't that the really important thing when it coms to these schools? So (I'm still kind of new so explain this to me) what would be the horrible damage that would occur is a bunch of kids can't edit for a while from certain machines? Gator (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's a good example of the problem with not blocking IPs that belong to schools, JUST because it's a college IP. See 62.171.194.10. NOTHING but vandalism for some time, yet admins refuse to block (even for a short time) for the off chance that 1 out of 100 edits may be so useful as to overcome the fact that the remaining 99 edits are destroying the project. I say, block it (not forever, just for a short time) and don' let these vandal scum hide behind the fact that they use a shared computer. Other students would still be able to use Wikipedia, just not edit! What is the big deal?! Cost benefit analysis says that it's better to temporarily stop a vandal under this circumstance than let him have free license to vandalise in the false hope that someone might have the holy grail of edits and make ot all worth while. Please! I have no sympathy for vandals. None. Gator (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup, I changed the colour of the box. I'm not sure if it's because I have poor colour vision, but I for one had trouble reading black-on-blue and blue-on-blue. This is the same colour scheme used in a few other places on WP, too. Dan100 ( Talk) 13:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Fine - I can read it :). The yellow is only used in small bits - namely the easy-follow instructions on VfD, ViP etc Dan100 ( Talk) 10:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a new template {{test2b}} to make it easier to point out what articles have been vandalised. If the admins feel it is appropriate please add it to the main page. :-) -- Gaurav Arora Talk 16:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
User:65.23.232.135 has vandalsed two different pages; The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film),and Star Wars Battlefront II. On their user page I added a template:test2. I fixed the ' Fellowships' page and am about to fix ' Star Wars ' page as well. Is there any thing else I should do? HopefullGomer 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
On the page for Carstairs, Alberta, 209.89.199.44 wrote "Carstairs sucks." I removed it, but it was certainly not appropriate. Has this person added similar comments on other pages? Cadillac 00:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The following was just posted on User_talk:192.139.27.18, a Calgary Board of Education IP:
I go to Queen Elizabeth
The individuals involved in the vandalism are mainly Gifted and Talented Education students, and many of them consider it fun or fail to realize that the Wikipedia doesn't exist just for their own enjoyment. Temporary IP bans don't seem to solve anything, as the guy on the computer next to me just vandalized the article on Hong Kong despite the fact that his vandalism has resulted in temporary bans in the past, similar for others. When asked about it, he said that "If they don't want us to do it, then they shouldn't let us edit it"
Once again, the system of short-term blocks on shared IPs simply isn't working. If the Wiki engine allowed registered users to post from blocked IPs, these shared IPs could be blocked permanently, for the benefit of all--legitimate school contributors and the rest of us. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
If a vandal who has previously been warned and blocked returns after their block expires to commit the same vandalism, is it necessary to warn them again, or should we just report it immediately? Aquillion 16:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there any sort of interface between Wikipedia and related projects to deal with vandals moving from one project to another? User:70.29.3.3 , having been blocked from Wikipedia on October 21, 2005, has proceeded to vandalize 70 pages on Wikiquote in the space of a single day (October 23). Although an IP is involved, the vandalism is exactly the same on the Wikiquote pages as the ones on Wikipedia. Since this person is new to Wikiquote, does that mean that he/she gets to start afresh, going through all the warning stages before being blocked on Wikiquote; or does it mean that blocking can be applied on Wikiquote based on this person's record on Wikipedia? To vandalize 70 pages in one day is so extreme that this person could do a lot of disruption unless the customary grace period would be skipped on Wikiquote. I have informed the Wikiquote administrators of the vandalism but thought that I should mention it here also. I'm aware that this is not the page for reporting someone's vandalism, but I write here because I'm asking a policy question and wished to provide an example. Also, since this user is temporarily blocked on Wikipedia, it wouldn't be a Wikipedia "vandalism in progress" case. InvisibleSun 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Admins, it would really help us non-admins greatly if you remember to add {{test5}} to the vandals' talk pages when blocking them. -- Nlu 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I just want it stated for the record that the green background thingy for this page is really cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.21.215 ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
A anon vandal I've been following for the past few days was blocked yesterday, but now a new IP is vandalising the same page ( animal, among others). Is it alright to post an alert right away in cases like this, or better to assume good faith and go through the warning templates on the new talk page?
IPs in question:
— Jwanders 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what can be achieved by putting the vandal notices on top of the page in a colourful box, except perhaps lots of confusion for newbies who can find this page. I think this should be put back the way it was. - ulayiti (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
<includeonly>class="aivheader"</includeonly>
in the first line of
Template:Administrator intervention against vandalism header), and people who don't want to see it can make it not display in their user css (i.e. .aivheader { display:none; }
in
monobook.css, depending on skin). —
Cryptic
(talk)
01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey just out of curiosity why is this page protected from moves? KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but I'm amazed at how short the bans are for vandalism. Surely a first ban should be short, but a subsequent one should be a month or more. I've tried doing a bit of editing and started a few articles, but why should editors have to waste time on removing the puerile drivel of sad idiots with nothing better to do than wrecking? Gwaka Lumpa 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am, generally, in agreement with you. If a 24 hour block doesn't work, why would another one do it, and thena nother then 31 hours (like 7 more hours will do it) It should be 24, 48, week then month in my opinion and that's with ana non user a registered user deserves less sympathy ion my book and should be indefiantely banned if the account is obviosuly only for vandalism. Just my thoughts, many otehrs are much more lenient than I. Gator (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
See I totally agree. Just look at the history of the IP, just don;t assume its not static adn give a weak block (if any). If it's nothing but vandalism for some time then logic suggests that it will continue to be nothing but vandalism for some time to come unless a long block is administered. In those cases, an admin would be right to judge that there will likely be little collateral damage and will, likely, only stop a repeat vandal from coming back for a month or so. Go ahead and take the chance! In other words, don't give an IP leeway JUST because their an IP (thus, rewarding vandals for not registering), take a look at the user history before deciding whether to cut the user some slack. We need to ask ourselves, in general, what is more damaging to Wikiepdia, accidentally blocking a good user (who refuses to register) for a short time or allowing vandals continued freedom tom destroy our hard work. I know what I would say. Gator (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Just adding my agreement here. There is no reason why we should put up with vandalism. If we are fairly certain that there is no collateral damage, long blocks are the way to go. Thue | talk 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Somebody's just changed Byron Nelson's page to say that he died on January 1, 2006 - in other words, tomorrow, since Nelson lives in the United States. I'll edit it back, but is there anything else I should do? -- Charlene.vickers 03:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Its vandalism. Just post a warning on the user's talk page. Olorin28 03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
What's going on with these asian user names? They're being created almost faster than they can be deleted. Is anybody getting a fix on the IP that's doing this? JHMM13 ( T | C) 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I just restored User:204.174.27.234 again. User:Nlu removed him or her, saying it wasn't spam, but I disagree. I just happened to come across his or her linkspam; however, if you check the contributions, it becomes apparent that the user has been trying to insert certain external links since the end of December on several pages, against the wishes of the editors of those pages. It seems very likely that the user has a financial interest in the books that he/she repeatedly keeps linking to. (Sometimes quite clumsily, such as "Google search for...".) Also, the user has been warned a few times. Junes 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please adjust the text of this page to make it clear when someone should list a vandal here vs. at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress? I understand that this page gets faster response, but if that is the case, why would anyone ever list a vandal there? If there is not a clear answer to this, perhaps WP:VIP should be deleted or merged into this page.-- Srleffler 18:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the Willy_on_wheels example in the header just undeserved publicity and should be replaced with a permanently banned fictional username such as User:Example vandal name or the like? Femto 14:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
LivesinMom'sBasement ( talk · contribs) apparently made several nonsense articles that were speedied before the user was brought to AIV. Because they were speedied, without knowing the article titles there isn't (AFAIK) a way to connect the user to the articles. Is there another way to see deleted edits belonging to a user? -- Syrthiss 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A user, -=-=DARK=-=-, appears to be a vandal, but his username causes template:vandal to break, leaving User-multi error: no username detected ( help).. Any solutions? smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I just can't believe how feeble the measures against vandals, and especially habitual vandals, are. A clear case of vandalism should result in the IP being blocked for a serious amount of time without warning. I mean, are we an encyclopedia or some form of chat room? What I find especially bizarre is that when I spot a vandal and his history shows that he has been at it repeatedly, i. e. it wasn't just an isolated case of "newbie sandboxing", then there is still all this red tape before the culprit sees even the slightest form of forfeit. Maikel 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Anybody know how to stop this vandal? JHMM13 ( T | C) 04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the following counts as vandalism or a content dispute. Someone deleted about half of an article I wrote (after flagging it as POV first) and when the ensuing discussion didn't resolve it I put up an rfc. Six other people joined in and none of them agreed with the other guy. Still, he persists in deleting large chunks of text. I am inclined to call this vandalism, so I put up a warning on his talk page (not an official template because I wasn't sure). To no avail. Actually, it's a bit silly not to mention what this is about. It's Hiroshima (film). DirkvdM 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In the past I have had to revert some changes that Ghosts&empties made to various articles. I placed warnings on their talk page as a result. They also provide a number of good edits as well though. Now just recently they have blanked out the warnings that were put on their talk page by me. I have since reverted that change. If this was done as some sort of change in the user's attitude, that they wanted to sort of clean up their act or whatever, then I'd be fine with them as an editor. But when they make these nonsense edits while also adding good edits they seem more like either a schizophrenic or a troll. So, what can/should be done? Does any admin think that a warning from an admin and not just me, the common editor, would help? Dismas| (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In the case that an accused vandal is believes what he/she is doing is not vandalism, do they have the right to remove themselves from this page? I didn't think that was the case, I was under the impression that Admins are the only ones who should remove names from this page! Kntrabssi 02:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:V removing dispute tags if there is clearily outlined dispute on the talk page is a vandalism. On the the other hand it is not obvious if the dispute is clearily outlined here. Please provide a clear description what statements and why are disputed in the article. If possible please consider using narrower tags like {{Sectfact}}, {{Dubious}}, {{Disputed}} or {Disputeabout|Topic of dispute}}, etc. Do you really dispute everything in the article? Try to settle your your dispute on the talk page, or represent two views on a problem (such and such authors state this, but other authors object that, etc.), if some facts are unsourced or the sources are dubious, please use the {{fact}} or {{Verify credibility}} credibility template. If you want me to protect the article while you are settling your dispute - I can do it for you, just ask. abakharev 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Frenchgurl89 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks highly suspicious, check out userpage and talk page. Are there any guidelines for this sort of thing? Mak emi 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah use common sense. I've removed to contact info from the user page and added the page to my watchlist. It looks dodgy but it may be some kid who just doesn't understand. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I recently listed a vandal who'd left an abusive edit summary on Australian Greens about 16 hours previously, after having been warned and blocked some days back. This was removed with comment 'no action--no edits in last 16 hours'. How recent does vandalism have to be to qualify for action? I appreciate that there's not much to be gained by blocking anon IPs for ancient edits, but the only time period mentioned on the project page is 24 hours. (Note also that the edit on the Greens page took place about 11 pm on a Saturday night Australian time, which probably has something to do with why nobody noticed it immediately.) -- Calair 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, my own personal policy about it is that if I find recent vandalism, I report it here if there have been previous warnings or bannings (if there is a history of it). Its up to the admins as to what to do about them - I only report what I find. If this is not Wiki policy, or is inconvenient for admins, I'm sure before too long one of them will be kind enough to leave me a nice message directing me to the correct methodology. The problem is, as I see it, that there are many policy procedures - not all of them are clear cut - and many different warning (etc) templates that can be used. That's not a bad thing in my opinion, as it can cover all bases and is useful in specifying what a given problem is.
Kingboyk, you mentioned that shared IPs can only be blocked for short periods of time. I'm personally concerned about this. Some of these IPs seem to be particularly persistant and sometimes quite damaging to Wikipedia. My suggestion would be that, while we should perhaps show *slightly* more leniency for shared IPs, if vandalism is persistant from a certain IP, it should be blocked indefinately. If its a school's IP, then its the problem of the school - not of Wikipedia. Of course, the school should probably be entitled to appeal the block and promise to clamp down on vandalism. It is a waste of time to be going about reverting edits along the lines of "My teacher/Sarah Smith looks like a potato" etc, when editors such as myself could best serve Wiki by improving and creating articles, rather than undoing the work of immature 'pranksters'. I've never been banned, but I assume some kind of message is created automatically for people who attempt to edit Wikipedia from blocked IPs, explaining the reason, and outlining a way to appeal the deicision made? That should be where, in my opinion, Wikipedia's responsibility ends. -- Mal 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I believe strongly enough in it that I have now made the proposal Aaron. Feel free to add your vote. -- Mal 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
On March 15, 2006, the
User:Terminatorius bot created by
User:Audriusa blanked warnings from several user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning template where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. The bot was later stopped and the changes were reverted by the bot owner. Do you think this type of bot is a good idea? Please see discussion at
WP:BRFA#User:Terminatorius - automated blanking of the vandal anonymous IP talk pages
Wuzzy 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) The bot was later abandoned, and this discussion is now closed.
Wuzzy
15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user has repeatedly, albeit infrequently (on the order of days, or sometimes weeks between incidents) vandalized the Tony Stewart article by changing Tony Stewart's middle name of "Wayne" to "Maximus." Complicating the problem is that the vandal uses different IPs; although many have come from 69.223.11.14, which has been blocked in the past for this, other IPs in the 69.*.*.* range have been used as well. What's the appropriate way to handle this? Chuck 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Check RC...he's back again. JHMM13 ( T | C) 07:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The current management of items that were dealt with is difficult to follow; this page could use more transparency, by means of archiving. It's impossible to get an easy notion of how requests are handled. When an item is removed from the alerts, one has to go back to an earlier revision just to check the blocklog link. Try finding out whether there was a comment given in an incident that happened only yesterday.
It should not be expected from people who have listed an item that they go rooting through the edit history for possible replies. The edit summaries are not the best place for comments, especially for advice directed at inexperienced users who may never see it. Thus the suggestion is to add the following footer (the instructions in the header will have to be changed accordingly, too):
Done (or some other heading)
Move items that were dealt with below here. Archive when appropriate: Put the current pageID in the revision link, delete the old requests, put "archive" in the edit summary. — Revision prior to last archive: [1]
"List empty" does not have to mean "page empty". The additional keystrokes for the copy&paste of (re)moved items are more than offset by not having to explain every action. The edit summary for the basic 'done' removal can be as simple as "rm" or "one done, 2 alerts remain". The revision links will create a continuous chain of archive pages. (Should these prove cumbersome or of little use, skip that part, then one still would have only to seek the archive summaries in the edit history). It becomes possible to add later clarifications. All content that is related to an alert stays together and comments remain retraceable at a glance.
Femto
19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I was WP:BOLD and went ahead and removed it. I don't like too but was too busy fighting vandals to catch the proposal before. My apologies. Gator (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
My main intention was not creating an archive, but making it possible to keep the reports and their comments together. Maybe I'm just strange, but does nobody want to check the blocklog links to see what happened? How much time do you spend waiting for an earlier revision with the links or the edit history to come up?
Frankly I have no idea how much a certain amount of convenience is worth, compared to an uncertain amount of potential waste. How much time do admins spend typing "rm, blocked" or c&p'ing the removed IPs into the edit summary? These explanations seem like unnecessary work because it's obvious that when a report is removed, it is done - unless there remains no trace of it. The six or seven keystrokes for the move appear rather insignificant compared to the earlier work of going through the contributions, blocking, explaining the block, and all. If there's little need to delve into the archives, why do you spend time on detailed edit summaries that many people may never go look for? Femto 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I prefer it the way it used to be as well. But it was worth a try! AnnH ♫ 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What if the user doesn't vandalize often, but it appears that every edit over the past few months has been vandalism? They have recieved 9 warnings, never responded, and have been temporarily blocked. I would list on the page, but it doesn't seem to fall under the specific criteria. The user is Cackletta76 Atropos 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not every edit is vandalism. I just checked. Most, but not all. If it were all, I would eventually indef block as it was clear that the account was being used only to vandalise. As it stands, I would block the next time he vandalises. Let me know and I'll do it. Gator (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If They have not vandalized very recently (past 2 hours) since the last warning ({{ test3}} or {{ test4}}), what is to be done?
Surely it's not good if someone is warned and then takes to vandalizing pages no-one is watching (so that nobody ever notices the vandalism within two hours).
I also reworded \header to remove the implication that the warning has to be recent. Septentrionalis 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The user 65.6.4.143 has been repeatedly vandalizing and is now mounting personal attacks on those who have attempted to stop him/her. Please place a temporary block at the earliest convenience.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk| @ 17:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't #ABECF8 look nice instead of the pea-soup green, which reminds me of the film The Exorcist? K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
We need to have RandiRice blocked. The Flattbush article keeps getting vandalized. It's been well over 20 times that they have blanked out the entire thing, not to mention the vandalising that they do. All of their contributions have been vandalism. It's time to ban them from wikipedia. P.S. The flattbush article itself should stay up they have no right to get it pulled. They only aim to lie to the public and create this "triumphant" Communist image, when it could not be further from the truth and in actuality, the oppressive, exploitative ideals of Marxism should be out there being exposed, hidden by any means instead of being glorified at a respectable site like Wikipedia. Let's begin to consider banning them.I wrote the whole article and they do not want the real story out, because it makes the band (RandiRice) look rather untruthful. Stabinator 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
In tracing the vandalism of a page, I came across user 72.12.201.5 This is a very prolific vandal, from a high school. Much of the vandalism seems to be personal insults, probably of people he knows, but there is quite a lot of obscenities on political figures and racist comments. This user has had several blocks in the last couple of months, including 3 this last week. And 4 Final warnings including 2 this week. He may have switched to a new id: 72.20.128.64 which has just appeared this week, and reinstated one of his vandalizations. CFLeon 00:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Merecat Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush
"merecat" is repeatedly deleting my comments on a talk page. With very poor excuses possibly realistically relevant to one line, merecat deletes entire paragraphs of information.
I am new to wikipedia, so I would appreciate any insights anybody might have on what to do about this behavior.
It is plainly obvious that merecat is not operating in good faith.
I'd like to see wikipedia recuse merecat from the discussion, and usher in some Republicans with level heads to help in the neutral-ification process.
Please help, nobody should have to put up with this kind of abuse. Prometheuspan 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I object to the change from 24 hours because often vandalism doesn't get spotted for quite a few hours. For example I added Special:Contributions/72.1.206.21 who last vandalized at 18:02, 24 April 2006 but it was claimed that this was too late. Yet the contribs sugggest the same user has attacked the Racism article only 3 days ago. If problematic ips are continually not blocked the amount of vandalism will increase making more work for everyone. Arniep 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Prodego talk 02:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No, as that is the IP for Ottawa Carleton District School Board, which means a school IP. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
...in time at which to start a new line of warnings? Before, they told me it was each month. Judging by the results of me spamming the place, it's not enough by a long shot.
So what do I do if an IP vandalises 2, 3, or 5 days after the "last chance" they were given? Give them another one? Or thank them for experimenting with Wikipedia? Or just revert their crap, leaving their talk page to rot with no warnings, after which they are asked nicely to stop vandalising by the next admin who comes along and sees that the vandal hasn't been warned for an entire week? I know IP blocking isn't a punitive measure, but think what the vandals learn from this: vandalise every few days, and it's OK.
So once again. Into sections of what lengh should the warnings on a persistent vandal's talk page be divided? Months? Days? Hours?
P.S. I'm not talking about public access IPs, that's different. -- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Chodorkovskiy - this page is not for listing accounts that commit only vandalism, over a period of time. Such accounts can be, and are, perma-blocked, but if you notice one that needs this, mention it on WP:AN/I, not here - this page is, as people have said above, for quick responses to currently occuring vandalism. BTW, the account you mentioned above has been perma-blocked already. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I frequently notice alerts being added to this page about users who clearly do not meet the criteria for administrative intervention (i.e. have not vandalized in 24hrs, have barely vandalized at all, are involved in a content dispute rather than vandalism, etc.), and I was wondering if would be considered appropriate for a non-admin such as myself to remove these alerts? (Naturally I would leave an edit summary explaining the reasons for removing the alert.) Typically, I just leave them alone and wait for admins to go through the list and clear each user; however, there are many times, such as today, when there is an enormous backlog of alerts, many of which do not really require admin intervention, and it seems that removing the unnecessary alerts would allow for admins to deal with the real vandals more promptly. AmiDaniel ( Talk) 21:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It is very appropriate for non-admins to do as many admin tasks as possible. Everybody should act like an admin. Admins are nothing special: we're just editors with an extra button and feature or two. Adminship is no big deal. So, yes, please do follow the same protocols as admins should do and do all the admin jobs that you can do without the extra button. Everyone will benefit from this. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why WP:AIV shouldn't be treated like WP:AFD. Per Wikipedia:Deletion process, signed in non-admins may close deletion discussions which a) don't require admin tools (i.e. haven't resulted in 'delete') and b) are uncontroversial. I wholeheartedly endorse applying the same procedure to AIV submissions. At the very least non-admins should feel free to hold entries ("hasn't vandalised since last warning, leaving on for a bit") and then remove them when they reach a reasonable threshhold. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, more work from non admins would be great as long as it's done well. A number of tasks could be handled, such as noting editors that have not vandalized since the last warning, but hold them on the page for follow up checking, removing obvious non blocking candidates, etc. But keep in mind that doing so one is taking responsibility for that editors edits if one falsely removes an entry with bad faith. In fact doing that after a warning is very blockworthy. - Taxman Talk 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is a good idea, as long as it is done properly. My big concern here is that vandals could potentially remove themselves or other vandals from the WP:AIV page. Perhaps there should be a request page, where people could put themselves down for this responsibility. However, this could also have the same issue that WP:AIV has, in that it would require an admin to watch it, and approve users. So, I guess I'm split on this. On one hand, I like the idea, but on the other hand, it could be tricky to make it work.-- digital_me( Talk)( Contribs) 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I'm concerned this page might be working TOO well. The latest report on it was blocked by 3 administrators, with only 1 minute of separation (00:49, 26 Jun 2005, 00:50, 26 Jun 2005, 00:51, 26 Jun 2005). If this trend continues, we'll have things like 10 or more different admins blocking the same user at the same time. -- cesarb 00:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The header on this page suggests that editors use the {{test4}} warning before reporting vandals here. I'm not sure that this is advisable, as a non-admin cannot follow up on this warning. Before I was an admin I would always stop and seek admin assistance after test3. JeremyA 1 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
I dunno about reg. users using test4. Personally, I am okay with it, but it's up to you guys (I'm an admin so I use test4 anyways) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 1 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)
Adminship is about having extra tools. If non-admins can't be trusted with test4, they can't be trusted with test 1-3 either. Can't you place a test4 either if you're going away from the computer and nobody might notice the next vandalism and administer the block? Let's not limit vandal fighters further. -- W( t) 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
test4 is troublesome for use by non-admins because the time between a report to AIV and actual blocking by an administrator can easily be hours, depending on administrator availability. During that time the vandal in question can make quite a number of edits, making the "next time you block" part of the template a very empty threat. As people should not make empty threats, test4 is less useful for non-admins than, say, test3, which simply warns of blocking at some indeterminate time in the future. Collabi 11:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I will not block someone who has not yet received the test4 template, not to mention all the others. I would suggest that all users apply this template before bringing the case here. -- causa sui talk 03:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't mind if people post here after they've given out 3 warnings, culminating with ((test3)). An admin can then monitor the situation and issue a ((test4)), if needed, and then block the vandal quickly if he continues. It's a matter of judgement really: if a vandal has clearly ignored all warnings up to ((test3)), and it's likely that they will continue immediately and will have to be warned a fourth time, why not bring this to the attention of admins right after the ((test3))? However, if the vandalism happens only sporadically, over the course of several hours, days, or longer, then please warn with ((test4)) first and perhaps even wait until further vandalism does indeed occur before posting here. As I see it, AIV is basically about fast responses, and thus has two uses: when someone can be blocked immediately (five instances of vandalism, four warnings), or when instances of vandalism and warnings are happening in quick succession (what some people call "in real time"). -- MarkSweep ✍ 04:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be considered obsolete? After all, there already is a Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page. ‡ Jarlaxle July 1, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
I noticed over at Village Pump (proposals) that there is a great tool (displayed above) that lets you give a {{ test1}} warning by entering the username to warn in the box. However, didn't see any discussion there of where to put such a tool. I know that when I do RC patrol, I keep AIAV open in Firefox (I have to have some tab open, why not AIAV), and I thought it might be useful to include this tool here for ease of use. Perhaps it could be changed to give a {{ test4}} warning instead (i.e., you list the user here and give a test4 at the same time) or if it wouldn't clutter things up too much, all five test warnings could be included here (as I understand it, a different box would be needed for each.) What do others think? -- Essjay · Talk 15:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
If you use messages preset in your user subspace, you could add a similar box to your user/talk page and input your subpage instead of the test message.
I was thinking of it here because my system is usually to copy the username (or more often, IP) of the offender from the history of the vandalized page, click over to this tab, paste it into the {{user|Username}} template, paste it into the edit summary box, and click save. With it already present on the clipboard, it would be two more clicks to automatically test4 them from here. I don't know if others use a similar system, but I thought it might be helpful.
Another thought that comes to mind is using something similar on the block pages for admins to auto test5 any user they block. -- Essjay · Talk 16:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking, except in a place that's more visable, like AIAV (because you don't really want everyone running off to your subspace to warn people, do you?). I figured AIAV was a good place, since it's fairly well known and well used, and would be convenient for everyone. Really, I think just test4 would work, becasue that is the most relevant to AIAV (and maybe test5 for the blocking admin, and like I said, maybe that should be on the blockpage). -- Essjay · Talk 16:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I hope those boxes aren't a drain on the servers! I did something similar in one of my sandboxes, and created one for welcoming new users (one of my hobbies). I still think a test4 box would be useful on AIAV; does anyone have a specific objection to trying it there for a couple of days? -- Essjay · Talk 17:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The box looks good, but it could use a pull-down menu with the warnings, and perhaps short descriptions of them, on the left. The User talk: could probably be assumed. And it could also use the routine to check usernames while typing/pasting. My concern is that by making warnings too easy, we might find a lot of newbie pages being filled with them. ProhibitOnions 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to complain about the page for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco. The article is full of false accusations and insulting language. The mayor is NOT gay and he certainly has earned his current position. Please review the article and make the appropriate changes.
The AIAV works great, except when it comes to school IPs and other public machines. Admins are reluctant to block such IPs, and they often become a haven for vandals. In some cases (such as the New South Wales High Schools: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), over one hundred warnings and numerous short-term blocks have been issued by admins, yet anonymous users of these machines continue vandalizing pages with impunity.
I understand the reluctance to ban anonymous contributions from an IP possibly shared by legitimate users. However, when a machine is the source of constant vandalism, is it too much to ask legitimate users to spend the 30 seconds needed to register? I'm sure almost all serious Wiki contributors are registered users anyway; I don't think I'm going overboard by expecting all contributors using public PCs to log in. OwenX 20:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I still don't understand why we don't report vandalism to ISPs, or in the case of schools, to school administrators. -- Essjay · Talk 06:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
So if the IP is blocked....then the students won't be able to edit from that machine for a little while. They can still use Wikipedia as a a resource though, isn't that the really important thing when it coms to these schools? So (I'm still kind of new so explain this to me) what would be the horrible damage that would occur is a bunch of kids can't edit for a while from certain machines? Gator (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's a good example of the problem with not blocking IPs that belong to schools, JUST because it's a college IP. See 62.171.194.10. NOTHING but vandalism for some time, yet admins refuse to block (even for a short time) for the off chance that 1 out of 100 edits may be so useful as to overcome the fact that the remaining 99 edits are destroying the project. I say, block it (not forever, just for a short time) and don' let these vandal scum hide behind the fact that they use a shared computer. Other students would still be able to use Wikipedia, just not edit! What is the big deal?! Cost benefit analysis says that it's better to temporarily stop a vandal under this circumstance than let him have free license to vandalise in the false hope that someone might have the holy grail of edits and make ot all worth while. Please! I have no sympathy for vandals. None. Gator (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup, I changed the colour of the box. I'm not sure if it's because I have poor colour vision, but I for one had trouble reading black-on-blue and blue-on-blue. This is the same colour scheme used in a few other places on WP, too. Dan100 ( Talk) 13:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Fine - I can read it :). The yellow is only used in small bits - namely the easy-follow instructions on VfD, ViP etc Dan100 ( Talk) 10:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a new template {{test2b}} to make it easier to point out what articles have been vandalised. If the admins feel it is appropriate please add it to the main page. :-) -- Gaurav Arora Talk 16:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
User:65.23.232.135 has vandalsed two different pages; The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film),and Star Wars Battlefront II. On their user page I added a template:test2. I fixed the ' Fellowships' page and am about to fix ' Star Wars ' page as well. Is there any thing else I should do? HopefullGomer 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
On the page for Carstairs, Alberta, 209.89.199.44 wrote "Carstairs sucks." I removed it, but it was certainly not appropriate. Has this person added similar comments on other pages? Cadillac 00:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The following was just posted on User_talk:192.139.27.18, a Calgary Board of Education IP:
I go to Queen Elizabeth
The individuals involved in the vandalism are mainly Gifted and Talented Education students, and many of them consider it fun or fail to realize that the Wikipedia doesn't exist just for their own enjoyment. Temporary IP bans don't seem to solve anything, as the guy on the computer next to me just vandalized the article on Hong Kong despite the fact that his vandalism has resulted in temporary bans in the past, similar for others. When asked about it, he said that "If they don't want us to do it, then they shouldn't let us edit it"
Once again, the system of short-term blocks on shared IPs simply isn't working. If the Wiki engine allowed registered users to post from blocked IPs, these shared IPs could be blocked permanently, for the benefit of all--legitimate school contributors and the rest of us. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
If a vandal who has previously been warned and blocked returns after their block expires to commit the same vandalism, is it necessary to warn them again, or should we just report it immediately? Aquillion 16:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there any sort of interface between Wikipedia and related projects to deal with vandals moving from one project to another? User:70.29.3.3 , having been blocked from Wikipedia on October 21, 2005, has proceeded to vandalize 70 pages on Wikiquote in the space of a single day (October 23). Although an IP is involved, the vandalism is exactly the same on the Wikiquote pages as the ones on Wikipedia. Since this person is new to Wikiquote, does that mean that he/she gets to start afresh, going through all the warning stages before being blocked on Wikiquote; or does it mean that blocking can be applied on Wikiquote based on this person's record on Wikipedia? To vandalize 70 pages in one day is so extreme that this person could do a lot of disruption unless the customary grace period would be skipped on Wikiquote. I have informed the Wikiquote administrators of the vandalism but thought that I should mention it here also. I'm aware that this is not the page for reporting someone's vandalism, but I write here because I'm asking a policy question and wished to provide an example. Also, since this user is temporarily blocked on Wikipedia, it wouldn't be a Wikipedia "vandalism in progress" case. InvisibleSun 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Admins, it would really help us non-admins greatly if you remember to add {{test5}} to the vandals' talk pages when blocking them. -- Nlu 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I just want it stated for the record that the green background thingy for this page is really cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.21.215 ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
A anon vandal I've been following for the past few days was blocked yesterday, but now a new IP is vandalising the same page ( animal, among others). Is it alright to post an alert right away in cases like this, or better to assume good faith and go through the warning templates on the new talk page?
IPs in question:
— Jwanders 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what can be achieved by putting the vandal notices on top of the page in a colourful box, except perhaps lots of confusion for newbies who can find this page. I think this should be put back the way it was. - ulayiti (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
<includeonly>class="aivheader"</includeonly>
in the first line of
Template:Administrator intervention against vandalism header), and people who don't want to see it can make it not display in their user css (i.e. .aivheader { display:none; }
in
monobook.css, depending on skin). —
Cryptic
(talk)
01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey just out of curiosity why is this page protected from moves? KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but I'm amazed at how short the bans are for vandalism. Surely a first ban should be short, but a subsequent one should be a month or more. I've tried doing a bit of editing and started a few articles, but why should editors have to waste time on removing the puerile drivel of sad idiots with nothing better to do than wrecking? Gwaka Lumpa 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am, generally, in agreement with you. If a 24 hour block doesn't work, why would another one do it, and thena nother then 31 hours (like 7 more hours will do it) It should be 24, 48, week then month in my opinion and that's with ana non user a registered user deserves less sympathy ion my book and should be indefiantely banned if the account is obviosuly only for vandalism. Just my thoughts, many otehrs are much more lenient than I. Gator (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
See I totally agree. Just look at the history of the IP, just don;t assume its not static adn give a weak block (if any). If it's nothing but vandalism for some time then logic suggests that it will continue to be nothing but vandalism for some time to come unless a long block is administered. In those cases, an admin would be right to judge that there will likely be little collateral damage and will, likely, only stop a repeat vandal from coming back for a month or so. Go ahead and take the chance! In other words, don't give an IP leeway JUST because their an IP (thus, rewarding vandals for not registering), take a look at the user history before deciding whether to cut the user some slack. We need to ask ourselves, in general, what is more damaging to Wikiepdia, accidentally blocking a good user (who refuses to register) for a short time or allowing vandals continued freedom tom destroy our hard work. I know what I would say. Gator (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Just adding my agreement here. There is no reason why we should put up with vandalism. If we are fairly certain that there is no collateral damage, long blocks are the way to go. Thue | talk 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Somebody's just changed Byron Nelson's page to say that he died on January 1, 2006 - in other words, tomorrow, since Nelson lives in the United States. I'll edit it back, but is there anything else I should do? -- Charlene.vickers 03:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Its vandalism. Just post a warning on the user's talk page. Olorin28 03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
What's going on with these asian user names? They're being created almost faster than they can be deleted. Is anybody getting a fix on the IP that's doing this? JHMM13 ( T | C) 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I just restored User:204.174.27.234 again. User:Nlu removed him or her, saying it wasn't spam, but I disagree. I just happened to come across his or her linkspam; however, if you check the contributions, it becomes apparent that the user has been trying to insert certain external links since the end of December on several pages, against the wishes of the editors of those pages. It seems very likely that the user has a financial interest in the books that he/she repeatedly keeps linking to. (Sometimes quite clumsily, such as "Google search for...".) Also, the user has been warned a few times. Junes 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please adjust the text of this page to make it clear when someone should list a vandal here vs. at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress? I understand that this page gets faster response, but if that is the case, why would anyone ever list a vandal there? If there is not a clear answer to this, perhaps WP:VIP should be deleted or merged into this page.-- Srleffler 18:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the Willy_on_wheels example in the header just undeserved publicity and should be replaced with a permanently banned fictional username such as User:Example vandal name or the like? Femto 14:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
LivesinMom'sBasement ( talk · contribs) apparently made several nonsense articles that were speedied before the user was brought to AIV. Because they were speedied, without knowing the article titles there isn't (AFAIK) a way to connect the user to the articles. Is there another way to see deleted edits belonging to a user? -- Syrthiss 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A user, -=-=DARK=-=-, appears to be a vandal, but his username causes template:vandal to break, leaving User-multi error: no username detected ( help).. Any solutions? smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I just can't believe how feeble the measures against vandals, and especially habitual vandals, are. A clear case of vandalism should result in the IP being blocked for a serious amount of time without warning. I mean, are we an encyclopedia or some form of chat room? What I find especially bizarre is that when I spot a vandal and his history shows that he has been at it repeatedly, i. e. it wasn't just an isolated case of "newbie sandboxing", then there is still all this red tape before the culprit sees even the slightest form of forfeit. Maikel 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Anybody know how to stop this vandal? JHMM13 ( T | C) 04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the following counts as vandalism or a content dispute. Someone deleted about half of an article I wrote (after flagging it as POV first) and when the ensuing discussion didn't resolve it I put up an rfc. Six other people joined in and none of them agreed with the other guy. Still, he persists in deleting large chunks of text. I am inclined to call this vandalism, so I put up a warning on his talk page (not an official template because I wasn't sure). To no avail. Actually, it's a bit silly not to mention what this is about. It's Hiroshima (film). DirkvdM 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In the past I have had to revert some changes that Ghosts&empties made to various articles. I placed warnings on their talk page as a result. They also provide a number of good edits as well though. Now just recently they have blanked out the warnings that were put on their talk page by me. I have since reverted that change. If this was done as some sort of change in the user's attitude, that they wanted to sort of clean up their act or whatever, then I'd be fine with them as an editor. But when they make these nonsense edits while also adding good edits they seem more like either a schizophrenic or a troll. So, what can/should be done? Does any admin think that a warning from an admin and not just me, the common editor, would help? Dismas| (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In the case that an accused vandal is believes what he/she is doing is not vandalism, do they have the right to remove themselves from this page? I didn't think that was the case, I was under the impression that Admins are the only ones who should remove names from this page! Kntrabssi 02:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:V removing dispute tags if there is clearily outlined dispute on the talk page is a vandalism. On the the other hand it is not obvious if the dispute is clearily outlined here. Please provide a clear description what statements and why are disputed in the article. If possible please consider using narrower tags like {{Sectfact}}, {{Dubious}}, {{Disputed}} or {Disputeabout|Topic of dispute}}, etc. Do you really dispute everything in the article? Try to settle your your dispute on the talk page, or represent two views on a problem (such and such authors state this, but other authors object that, etc.), if some facts are unsourced or the sources are dubious, please use the {{fact}} or {{Verify credibility}} credibility template. If you want me to protect the article while you are settling your dispute - I can do it for you, just ask. abakharev 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Frenchgurl89 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks highly suspicious, check out userpage and talk page. Are there any guidelines for this sort of thing? Mak emi 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah use common sense. I've removed to contact info from the user page and added the page to my watchlist. It looks dodgy but it may be some kid who just doesn't understand. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I recently listed a vandal who'd left an abusive edit summary on Australian Greens about 16 hours previously, after having been warned and blocked some days back. This was removed with comment 'no action--no edits in last 16 hours'. How recent does vandalism have to be to qualify for action? I appreciate that there's not much to be gained by blocking anon IPs for ancient edits, but the only time period mentioned on the project page is 24 hours. (Note also that the edit on the Greens page took place about 11 pm on a Saturday night Australian time, which probably has something to do with why nobody noticed it immediately.) -- Calair 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, my own personal policy about it is that if I find recent vandalism, I report it here if there have been previous warnings or bannings (if there is a history of it). Its up to the admins as to what to do about them - I only report what I find. If this is not Wiki policy, or is inconvenient for admins, I'm sure before too long one of them will be kind enough to leave me a nice message directing me to the correct methodology. The problem is, as I see it, that there are many policy procedures - not all of them are clear cut - and many different warning (etc) templates that can be used. That's not a bad thing in my opinion, as it can cover all bases and is useful in specifying what a given problem is.
Kingboyk, you mentioned that shared IPs can only be blocked for short periods of time. I'm personally concerned about this. Some of these IPs seem to be particularly persistant and sometimes quite damaging to Wikipedia. My suggestion would be that, while we should perhaps show *slightly* more leniency for shared IPs, if vandalism is persistant from a certain IP, it should be blocked indefinately. If its a school's IP, then its the problem of the school - not of Wikipedia. Of course, the school should probably be entitled to appeal the block and promise to clamp down on vandalism. It is a waste of time to be going about reverting edits along the lines of "My teacher/Sarah Smith looks like a potato" etc, when editors such as myself could best serve Wiki by improving and creating articles, rather than undoing the work of immature 'pranksters'. I've never been banned, but I assume some kind of message is created automatically for people who attempt to edit Wikipedia from blocked IPs, explaining the reason, and outlining a way to appeal the deicision made? That should be where, in my opinion, Wikipedia's responsibility ends. -- Mal 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I believe strongly enough in it that I have now made the proposal Aaron. Feel free to add your vote. -- Mal 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
On March 15, 2006, the
User:Terminatorius bot created by
User:Audriusa blanked warnings from several user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning template where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. The bot was later stopped and the changes were reverted by the bot owner. Do you think this type of bot is a good idea? Please see discussion at
WP:BRFA#User:Terminatorius - automated blanking of the vandal anonymous IP talk pages
Wuzzy 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) The bot was later abandoned, and this discussion is now closed.
Wuzzy
15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user has repeatedly, albeit infrequently (on the order of days, or sometimes weeks between incidents) vandalized the Tony Stewart article by changing Tony Stewart's middle name of "Wayne" to "Maximus." Complicating the problem is that the vandal uses different IPs; although many have come from 69.223.11.14, which has been blocked in the past for this, other IPs in the 69.*.*.* range have been used as well. What's the appropriate way to handle this? Chuck 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Check RC...he's back again. JHMM13 ( T | C) 07:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The current management of items that were dealt with is difficult to follow; this page could use more transparency, by means of archiving. It's impossible to get an easy notion of how requests are handled. When an item is removed from the alerts, one has to go back to an earlier revision just to check the blocklog link. Try finding out whether there was a comment given in an incident that happened only yesterday.
It should not be expected from people who have listed an item that they go rooting through the edit history for possible replies. The edit summaries are not the best place for comments, especially for advice directed at inexperienced users who may never see it. Thus the suggestion is to add the following footer (the instructions in the header will have to be changed accordingly, too):
Done (or some other heading)
Move items that were dealt with below here. Archive when appropriate: Put the current pageID in the revision link, delete the old requests, put "archive" in the edit summary. — Revision prior to last archive: [1]
"List empty" does not have to mean "page empty". The additional keystrokes for the copy&paste of (re)moved items are more than offset by not having to explain every action. The edit summary for the basic 'done' removal can be as simple as "rm" or "one done, 2 alerts remain". The revision links will create a continuous chain of archive pages. (Should these prove cumbersome or of little use, skip that part, then one still would have only to seek the archive summaries in the edit history). It becomes possible to add later clarifications. All content that is related to an alert stays together and comments remain retraceable at a glance.
Femto
19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I was WP:BOLD and went ahead and removed it. I don't like too but was too busy fighting vandals to catch the proposal before. My apologies. Gator (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
My main intention was not creating an archive, but making it possible to keep the reports and their comments together. Maybe I'm just strange, but does nobody want to check the blocklog links to see what happened? How much time do you spend waiting for an earlier revision with the links or the edit history to come up?
Frankly I have no idea how much a certain amount of convenience is worth, compared to an uncertain amount of potential waste. How much time do admins spend typing "rm, blocked" or c&p'ing the removed IPs into the edit summary? These explanations seem like unnecessary work because it's obvious that when a report is removed, it is done - unless there remains no trace of it. The six or seven keystrokes for the move appear rather insignificant compared to the earlier work of going through the contributions, blocking, explaining the block, and all. If there's little need to delve into the archives, why do you spend time on detailed edit summaries that many people may never go look for? Femto 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I prefer it the way it used to be as well. But it was worth a try! AnnH ♫ 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What if the user doesn't vandalize often, but it appears that every edit over the past few months has been vandalism? They have recieved 9 warnings, never responded, and have been temporarily blocked. I would list on the page, but it doesn't seem to fall under the specific criteria. The user is Cackletta76 Atropos 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not every edit is vandalism. I just checked. Most, but not all. If it were all, I would eventually indef block as it was clear that the account was being used only to vandalise. As it stands, I would block the next time he vandalises. Let me know and I'll do it. Gator (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If They have not vandalized very recently (past 2 hours) since the last warning ({{ test3}} or {{ test4}}), what is to be done?
Surely it's not good if someone is warned and then takes to vandalizing pages no-one is watching (so that nobody ever notices the vandalism within two hours).
I also reworded \header to remove the implication that the warning has to be recent. Septentrionalis 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The user 65.6.4.143 has been repeatedly vandalizing and is now mounting personal attacks on those who have attempted to stop him/her. Please place a temporary block at the earliest convenience.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk| @ 17:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't #ABECF8 look nice instead of the pea-soup green, which reminds me of the film The Exorcist? K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
We need to have RandiRice blocked. The Flattbush article keeps getting vandalized. It's been well over 20 times that they have blanked out the entire thing, not to mention the vandalising that they do. All of their contributions have been vandalism. It's time to ban them from wikipedia. P.S. The flattbush article itself should stay up they have no right to get it pulled. They only aim to lie to the public and create this "triumphant" Communist image, when it could not be further from the truth and in actuality, the oppressive, exploitative ideals of Marxism should be out there being exposed, hidden by any means instead of being glorified at a respectable site like Wikipedia. Let's begin to consider banning them.I wrote the whole article and they do not want the real story out, because it makes the band (RandiRice) look rather untruthful. Stabinator 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
In tracing the vandalism of a page, I came across user 72.12.201.5 This is a very prolific vandal, from a high school. Much of the vandalism seems to be personal insults, probably of people he knows, but there is quite a lot of obscenities on political figures and racist comments. This user has had several blocks in the last couple of months, including 3 this last week. And 4 Final warnings including 2 this week. He may have switched to a new id: 72.20.128.64 which has just appeared this week, and reinstated one of his vandalizations. CFLeon 00:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Merecat Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush
"merecat" is repeatedly deleting my comments on a talk page. With very poor excuses possibly realistically relevant to one line, merecat deletes entire paragraphs of information.
I am new to wikipedia, so I would appreciate any insights anybody might have on what to do about this behavior.
It is plainly obvious that merecat is not operating in good faith.
I'd like to see wikipedia recuse merecat from the discussion, and usher in some Republicans with level heads to help in the neutral-ification process.
Please help, nobody should have to put up with this kind of abuse. Prometheuspan 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I object to the change from 24 hours because often vandalism doesn't get spotted for quite a few hours. For example I added Special:Contributions/72.1.206.21 who last vandalized at 18:02, 24 April 2006 but it was claimed that this was too late. Yet the contribs sugggest the same user has attacked the Racism article only 3 days ago. If problematic ips are continually not blocked the amount of vandalism will increase making more work for everyone. Arniep 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Prodego talk 02:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No, as that is the IP for Ottawa Carleton District School Board, which means a school IP. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
...in time at which to start a new line of warnings? Before, they told me it was each month. Judging by the results of me spamming the place, it's not enough by a long shot.
So what do I do if an IP vandalises 2, 3, or 5 days after the "last chance" they were given? Give them another one? Or thank them for experimenting with Wikipedia? Or just revert their crap, leaving their talk page to rot with no warnings, after which they are asked nicely to stop vandalising by the next admin who comes along and sees that the vandal hasn't been warned for an entire week? I know IP blocking isn't a punitive measure, but think what the vandals learn from this: vandalise every few days, and it's OK.
So once again. Into sections of what lengh should the warnings on a persistent vandal's talk page be divided? Months? Days? Hours?
P.S. I'm not talking about public access IPs, that's different. -- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Chodorkovskiy - this page is not for listing accounts that commit only vandalism, over a period of time. Such accounts can be, and are, perma-blocked, but if you notice one that needs this, mention it on WP:AN/I, not here - this page is, as people have said above, for quick responses to currently occuring vandalism. BTW, the account you mentioned above has been perma-blocked already. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I frequently notice alerts being added to this page about users who clearly do not meet the criteria for administrative intervention (i.e. have not vandalized in 24hrs, have barely vandalized at all, are involved in a content dispute rather than vandalism, etc.), and I was wondering if would be considered appropriate for a non-admin such as myself to remove these alerts? (Naturally I would leave an edit summary explaining the reasons for removing the alert.) Typically, I just leave them alone and wait for admins to go through the list and clear each user; however, there are many times, such as today, when there is an enormous backlog of alerts, many of which do not really require admin intervention, and it seems that removing the unnecessary alerts would allow for admins to deal with the real vandals more promptly. AmiDaniel ( Talk) 21:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It is very appropriate for non-admins to do as many admin tasks as possible. Everybody should act like an admin. Admins are nothing special: we're just editors with an extra button and feature or two. Adminship is no big deal. So, yes, please do follow the same protocols as admins should do and do all the admin jobs that you can do without the extra button. Everyone will benefit from this. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why WP:AIV shouldn't be treated like WP:AFD. Per Wikipedia:Deletion process, signed in non-admins may close deletion discussions which a) don't require admin tools (i.e. haven't resulted in 'delete') and b) are uncontroversial. I wholeheartedly endorse applying the same procedure to AIV submissions. At the very least non-admins should feel free to hold entries ("hasn't vandalised since last warning, leaving on for a bit") and then remove them when they reach a reasonable threshhold. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, more work from non admins would be great as long as it's done well. A number of tasks could be handled, such as noting editors that have not vandalized since the last warning, but hold them on the page for follow up checking, removing obvious non blocking candidates, etc. But keep in mind that doing so one is taking responsibility for that editors edits if one falsely removes an entry with bad faith. In fact doing that after a warning is very blockworthy. - Taxman Talk 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is a good idea, as long as it is done properly. My big concern here is that vandals could potentially remove themselves or other vandals from the WP:AIV page. Perhaps there should be a request page, where people could put themselves down for this responsibility. However, this could also have the same issue that WP:AIV has, in that it would require an admin to watch it, and approve users. So, I guess I'm split on this. On one hand, I like the idea, but on the other hand, it could be tricky to make it work.-- digital_me( Talk)( Contribs) 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)