Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Edit conflicts

Is there some way - any way - of avoiding edit conflicts, or at least minimising their inconvenience, on this page of all pages? I have just typed in the same vandal warning five times, and on each occasion lost my text in an edit conflict. The competing warnings were equally valid, but is there not some way of holding text for resubmission in this situation?--Anthony.bradbury 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is annoying - what I do is "Show preview" before posting and if I am advised that another edit has been made, scroll down to the second edit screen below where my edit is still intact - cut and paste it into the top edit screen and with luck and fast fingers only have to do this a few times before I get in there. A pain, but at least you don't have to keep losing and re-typing that same text. Hope this helps - of course if the edit system can be improved as you suggest, all the better. --Tvoz 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Similarly, I use "show changes" and, if anything comes up yellow, I copy what I've written (or, if I'm posting several responses in a single thread, I copy what has been said in the meantime). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Depending on your browser and cache settings -- the last page on your back button should still contain the text you typed in. This has worked for me every time I have had an edit conflict. -- Renesis (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
First, I type FAST! I do not care about typos in my explanation, the admins get the picture. Second of all, If i have edit conflicted and I suspect it again, I usually do a quick <SHIFT> + <HOME> then a <CTRL> + C top copy and it is on the clipborad in case I gotta repaste it quick. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Type your edit into a text editor, then click the edit button, paste, then save, this reduces the chance of an edit conflict to just a few seconds. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If I have an edit conflict, I: back up to my preview screen, cut the text I typed in, back out of the edit and the page altogether, wait a moment, go to the page again, edit again, paste in the text, and save it quickly. That almost always works for me. JRSpriggs 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just scroll down on the page telling me about the edit conflict and it has the diff between my attempted edit and the edit that it conflicted with. I just copy the text from there into the text box at the top, and save. Takes 10 seconds and doesn't require loading any more pages... --Tango 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I do too... The text isn't deleted outright in an edit conflict, just moved to another window. --Ginkgo100 talk 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Good, I was worried for a minute that I was missing something... --Tango 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I just copy from the diff aswell, tis quite annoying when someone else reports the vandal that I was going for, but I suppose it has the same end which is what AIV is for. James086Talk | Contribs 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you use Firefox you can use WP:ARV to report vandals. It is a realy nice tool. Rettetast 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Offensive names

Is this the right page to report offensive usernames?

— Canderous Ordo 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, please list them on the main page (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 4)! I have blocked User:Poop, but the others have made no edits (if they are even registered). Thanks! -- Renesis (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"if they are even registered" — The "logs" link should at least show the account creation, unless the account has been completely deleted. "Mierda" and "Piss" show up that way, "Merda" doesn't (now). – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:34, 2 Dec 2006 (UTC).
A more reliable check is to go to the user page and see if the "User contributions" link shows up in the toolbox. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
But one can create an account without making any contribs. In that situation, the account creation should still show up in "logs". Will the contribs link show up always and only in that situation? See the "Merda" listing above. – SAJordan talkcontribs 21:54, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Yeah, even if a user doesn't make any contributions, you can still tell if that username exists by looking at "user contributions". If the account has not been registered, then "user contributions" will not be there. However, if an IP has not made any contributions at all, it will not show you the user contributions link. Nishkid64 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of valid vandals

How come many times, admins remove vandals from the list because they haven't vandalized in half an hour or an hour. The page says don't list it if they haven't vandalized in 24 hrs, don't list them. A vandal can stop for a little while and then resume. What if he took a break to do something, like eat lunch. Does that mean their name gets removed? In my mind, if they've vandalized after the final warning less than 24 hours ago (not one hour), they can be blocked. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 17:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I really can't vouch for this, but I personally ignore periodic breaks from vandalism sprees. Your thoughts were the exact same I had in my mind when I started blocking vandals, and I still will block vandals if they have vandalized within the last 18 or so hours. Nishkid64 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
My personal cutoff is around 1.5 hours. Blocking is a preventative action, not a punitive one. If they've stopped vandalising, there is no point blocking them. That's with IP addresses - logged in users, I'll block regardless of the time. With IP addresses, you need to always keep in mind that you might be blocking a helpful editor who happens to use that IP next, 1.5 hours is more than long enough for someone else to be using that address. My main exception is if they've just come off another block, as that usually means it's the same person, so is probably a static address. --Tango 21:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
We have bots that track the edits of vandals for 24-hour periods of time and they are reported by those bots at that time. ZsinjTalk 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but they report immediately after the 4th vandalism edit in 24 hours. We're talking about the time since the last edit, not the time since the first edit. --Tango 11:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, if a user hasn't vandalized in the last 30 minutes, I won't block him, although I would leave him listed for 45-60 minutes in AIV just in case. As stated, you block to prevent further damage, not to punish what someone has done in the past. -- ReyBrujo 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I figure that if a guy has vandalized maybe 15 hours ago, they'll probably come back and vandalize within the next day or two. According to your system of blocking, that user would not be blocked, and they could continue to vandalize sporadically. I would block them because I am inclined to believe that this user will come back to vandalize. It may seem like a punitive measure, but I do what I feel is most appropriate in such situations. Nishkid64 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the important thing to consider is how long ago they vandalised relative to the length of the block you would impose. If you're only going to impose a 24 hours block (as is normal for IP addresses), it won't stop them coming back in a couple of days. In your example, the vandal should have been blocked for 24 hours 15 hours ago, so he would have 9 hours left. A block at the right time wouldn't have stopped him coming back the next day, so why should a late block do so? If we were worried about IP vandals coming back the next day, the standard block would be longer than 24 hours. It isn't any longer, since we don't want to risk collateral damage. --Tango 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding ReyBrujo's comment, maybe there could be some sort of "watchilst" section either here or somewhere else? Sometimes I am keeping track of a user adding “sneaky vandalism” to articles, such as changing facts despite warnings to desist. If I have to sign off, the user might be able to continue in this manner for a while before he is recognized. I could solve this problem, though, by adding the user to some sort of “watchlist” page, which could also be used for sporadic IP vandals who are currently on their last warning. This would clean up the main WP:AIV page by removing users who probably won't be blocked unless they vandalize again. But these are just my own thoughts– please let me know if such an arrangement would be practical. Thanks, Dar-Ape 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. --Tango 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I like Dar-Ape's idea, too. I try to keep watching vandals, but sometimes it's hard. Is it feasible? riana_dzasta 12:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could have a WP:AIV/LT (long term?) page, and move them there instead of just adding a comment like "keeping here to watch for a little bit". If paranoid, we can full protect the page so that only admins can report and remove from there, which would prevent anyone from bypassing AIV. This may solve cases where users vandalize a little every day, but not enough to get blocked by some admins (or at least, I) due this "moral" problem we have. This list could also be a detect candidates for Wikipedia:Abuse reports. -- ReyBrujo 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also suggest adding sneaky vandals to the blacklists of the bots in the IRC channels like #vandalism-en-wp. You can put "r=sneaky vandal" so those folks can keep an eye on them. delldot | talk 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies

I am sorry for that edit. I used the wrong template on that IP address. I hope I fixed it.

This user reserves the right to completely screw up their own edits.

 :)  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


New Idea

This is a continuation of comments left on Removal of valid vandals, but I wanted to start a new a new heading since I propose a new page to deal with vandalism. I have just created User:Dar-Ape/Persistent vandalism, and I would appreciate any and all thoughts people have on this, and whether it could become a real boy someday :-). Thanks, Dar-Ape 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Change?

The page says "Only list here if: ... They have vandalized recently (past 24 hours)..." I think this should be changed to "(past few hours)" as there is almost no chance of someone being blocked who has not edited for several hours. Furthermore, I hesitate to put a number on this, and think "few" might work best. Thoughts? Dar-Ape 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If they were very profliifent vandals and have just come off a long block, I would be inclined to give them another if it was in the last 24 hours. ViridaeTalk 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Borisblue 08:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
How about "Only list here if they have vandalised in the past few hours, or have been previously blocked for vandalism."? It makes it a little longer and more complicated, but I think it accurately determines which vandals will get blocked. I would be tempted to reduce "past few hours" to "past hour" - especially for IP addresses, an hour of silence usually means they've stopped and will probably have a different address when they come back. --Tango 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I think it's fair to give a user one or two more warnings if they're coming back after a block. Especially if it's a school or IP or another IP with a lot of users, they get a ton of blocks but helpful users also contribute from them. And also if a block was a long time in the past, it could be a different user just being a newbie. But I would say they shouldn't necessarily get all 4 test templates over again after they're coming back from a block. Just my take. delldot | talk 20:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Verily, delldot. What I had in mind when I said this was IPs that are shared by a school or organization. Even if the IP has been blocked before, it seems unlikely that blocking it for edits made 8 hours ago will prevent vandalism; rather, it could prevent other anonymous helpful edits from the same IP. Blocking should be preventive, not punitive, but this IP would seem like a valid listing per the "24 hour" clause. (See my below comment?) I hope this specifies my intent in bringing this up. Dar-Ape 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call. I agree with changing it to "few". delldot | talk 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like this conversation has kind of gone cold. Does anyone object to changing it to "few"? If not, I'll go ahead and change it. delldot | talk 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess you already know what I think ;). Dar-Ape 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I went ahead and changed it, feel free to revert me if you disagree or want more discussion. delldot | talk 19:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

final warning

The instructions are written in a way which would seem to imply that someone is not reportable here after the following sequence of recent events:

  1. Test4
  2. Vandalism
  3. Another test4

They are clearly reportable after (2) above, and it would be odd if someone posting another warning (3) were to change that. The point is that someone should be reportable here if they have vandalised after a recent warning which claims to be a final warning, even if it turns out not to be. I'm going to change the wording to reflect this. — Alan✉ 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what would be great, is if folks trying to stop vandalism could go to one page that listed warning templates, instead of having to look here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and 57 other places. I realize that "Wikipedians" fetishize bureaucracy, but Christ. Cribcage 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yikes. I only use WP:WARN, maybe WP:UTM if I don't immediately find what I'm looking for (which is rare). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reporting to school admins

What's the policy on reporting abuse? Should editors do this, or leave it to the administrators? This talk page has a contact email, though I am holding back on contacting them incase it's an admin-only thing. Thanks! JoshHolloway 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to leave it to administrators. Admins are just normal users with "access to technical features that help with maintenance". Whether the school will actually get back to you or fix the issue is another thing. I've tried it a couple times without apparent success. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) JoshHolloway 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dismissal

I believe there's been an error. "206.253.148.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)" was not blocked, and the user who removed my notice claimed it was a content dispute. This is not the case. The user removed content repeatedly after three warnings, eventually getting inWikipedia:civil enough with me to make an offensive comment to my user talk page. Vandal, even if some don't see the clarity of the situation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a content dispute, you did not help the situation by issuing vandal warnings either, clearly wasn't vandalism. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What the hell, Matthew? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Disregarding your off-color remarks to Matthew, it is a content dispute, hence it is not appropriate for this board. Please use dispute resolution. Thanks. --210physicq (c) 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy reports

If someone reports a suspected open proxy but there has not been recent vandalism from that IP and the suspect has been reported at WP:OP for investigation, can/should we remove the reports from the listing? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussions moved from the main page. --WinHunter (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

These all belong here: WP:OP#Waiting. ZsinjTalk 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody seems to be paying attention over there, and I'm trying to do something about the enormous backlog. MER-C 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Most Admins watching this page are not equipped with the knowledge to determine open proxies. --WinHunter (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hence I'm picking the ones that can be verified by a simple check of the RBLs. MER-C 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
My guess is most admins (including me) have no idea what RBLs is and what those reports implies. --WinHunter (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) In {{ipvandal}}, there's a link that says RBLs, for example 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). An RBL is a real time blacklist of known spammy and compromised IPs, see DNSBL. Click on it. Scroll down. For the IPs I reported, you'll see an entry that says "open proxy". Here's the list:

The last one's a little harder, but NJABL says it's a proxy, which it is. MER-C 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

However, WP:OP specifically states "To prevent abuse or vandalism, only proxy checks by verified users will be accepted." That and other information on the page would seem to suggest blocking before such a check by a verified user, regardless of the RBL link availability, is a no-no. Am I wrong in this? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Things are uselessly stale over there, with the backlog sharply growing due to the increase in spambot postings (there was an organised campaign to flood with spam yesterday and today, too). That was, until a recent purge got the backlog down to 2 weeks. The list was way too long, that I'd decided to do something about it. MER-C 13:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not a reason to circumvent the process, in my opinion ... have you considered pursuing becoming a 'verified user' so that you can work at that desk directly? That would seem to be the better option over putting inappropriate material on AIV ... inappropriate based on there not being vandalism from the IP's perpetrated in the recent past. My understanding is that AIV is for fast-response activities - things that need to be taken care of right away. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What is a "verified user" and how does one apply to become one? JRSpriggs 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates

How often do admin look at this page? Because I don't want to suggestions in a row to go with out replies there. Cheers, --HamedogTalk|@ 06:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure but ask that over there? :) This is not a general questions type page. Village Pump or Help Desk is good for that...or the page you are talking about. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but the issue is that not many people go there and only admins can edit that template.--HamedogTalk|@ 06:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you take a hint?--HamedogTalk|@ 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Can an admin please comment on the suggestion at WP:ITN/C or put my suggestion in the template? That page is so ineffective. Warne should go up its a massive record.--HamedogTalk|@ 06:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really needed assistance, post at WP:AN. I responded to your ITN proposal at the candidate page. Nishkid64 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Debate Regarding 24.183.40.221

This discussion was copied from the project page where it occured pending consensus. --Matthew 06:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


      • Actually, editing other editor's comments, even for spelling and/or grammar mistakes, is widely considered bad form, and in severe cases can be considered as a blockable offense. --210physicq (c) 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, what is "widely considered bad form" is also encouraged by long-established recommendations, first introduced as an article by a person who has served on the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors. [1] "Refactoring is a stronger word that copy editing." The current version of that page states that some consider Wikipedia at odds with peers in that refactoring and editing are elsewhere considered synonymous. Copy editing is a lesser form of refactoring (or editing as it is more widely dubbed) but is one element of editing (sometimes called refactoring) because it is intended to "improve readability while preserving meaning." If improving readability while preserving meaning is considered by some not to advance the purpose of composing an encyclopedia, perhaps those who have reached such a conclusion need to reconsider their conclusion in the context of well-established traditions, guidelines and practices. Wikipedia lists a significant example of refactoring, which may be considered bad form by some, but is probably more widely accepted as evidenced by the presence of a project article encouraging the practice. I suggest if people object to the practice, instead of calling one well-intended editor a vandal for doing what appears to many to be suggested practice, they contribute to the page that encourages the practice to see if others there agree that the practice is not as helpful as the page represents in its effort to get people to adopt the practice. KindWordsNotHeard 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
          • This is not the appropriate forum to discuss this, but if I was to move this to WP:ANI, your statements would be labeled wikilawyering. Let me introduce to you the concepts of consensus and WP:IAR, which in one sweep nullifies your entire argument. --210physicq (c) 04:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Please do not condescend toward me. I am well aquainted with the concept of consensus, though you have in no way suggested why your allusion to the concept is relevant here. The odd guideline to Ignore All Rules could as logically support my analysis as it could "in one sweep nullify" my input, and because it can nullify any argument in any context, it is not a very mature argument, as arguments go. Grown up arguments have legs. How is your argument valid that my response here to the invitation to edit is "wikilawyering" while your offering of letter soup to imply my donation is not useful is something else? Have you passed the Wikilawyer bar exam, and are qualified to do so while others are not permitted to reflect on policies, guidelines or practices in a specific context? If I were to visit some places, I would be labeled with a certain disparaging term that starts with an "n", but that doesn't mean the disparagement has merit. KindWordsNotHeard 06:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Getting back to what this board is actually for, I don't think that much of his edits are that bad; however, since his edits are up for...debate, I'll leave it here for now. --210physicq (c) 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Where, if not here, is the debate about whether or not this is vandalism to be conducted? And what are we to debate if not whether editing talk pages for grammar and spelling is a widely endorsed practice? You might consider that this is not the page for "intervention against bad edits" so an opinion about whether or not the edit is "bad" is not appropriate here; the discussion is about what comprises vandalism in the context of specific edits referenced here. If you would like to continue discussion about the propriety of practices discussed here in the broader context, I have already suggested that you address your comments to the page where the practice of refactoring is advanced as a laudable practice. KindWordsNotHeard 06:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Whether or not the edits of others' comments are vandalism is beyond my wisdom, but this debate is getting kind of hot. This person while perhaps a persistnat "vandal" they do not pose a serious enough threat for us to get all riled up about. Let's reach a reasonable consensus and move on. --Matthew 06:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • I think we already have a consensus, albeit among a very few respondants, unless the reporting user does not concur with the consensus that followed, which agreed the edits were either "not bad" or "not vandalism". The heat, as it were, seems not to involve whether the edits are vandalism or "bad", but whether I am qualified to respond and whether my input was responsive to the context. While I may be willing to offer further consideration, for my interests at this point I consider the matter here closed. I honestly only responded here because I was astounded to see someone's effort to correct spelling and grammar cast as a pseudo-criminal activity (vandalism). I consider the allegations that my input was not welcome to represent only of the views of the person expressing such views, though the recurrance of a poorly argued "you're-not-appropriate" responses to legitimate input does inform me somewhat about the capacity of some people to recognize and make use of valuable input offered by others. KindWordsNotHeard 06:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone. I certainly didn't mean to start this when I reported this user. Really, I'm assuming that this user is editing these talk pages in good faith. I really think that the user is probably just bugged by sentences that don't begin with capital letters and badly misspelled words and words that are run together and when the user stumbles accross talk pages that have these types of errors, goes about copy-editing. But, it's problematic to have anyone messing with what someone else said on a talk page. For starters, sometimes errors are purposeful. But also, talk pages are really the only way to get to know people, and you don't want to get to know edited versions of people.
  • The other problem is is that I don't even know how to warn this user. The user uses at least three IP addresses: 24.183.40.221 and 24.14.139.44 which I originally reported as well as 66.191.117.215 and has a wikipedia user name Mysterypaw, though hasn't made any edits with it. I was able to find this by going only a month back in the edits for 24.183.40.221 (see talk page). Scratch that. Make that two wiki names, maybe. Here the user made an edit as 24.183.40.221, but signed as *Ruby, a wiki user with no user page, talk page or contribs. I have no idea how many IPs this user uses or how many usernames the user has which makes this user difficult to warn. I do feel that some action should be taken because the user shows a consistent pattern of editing other people's content on talk pages whenever something appears to bother the user. TStein 09:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So he's a sock-puppet. That's surely much worse than editing people's grammar? JoshHolloway 12:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That's an awfully definitive declaration to make with what little evidence has been given.
        1. We are dealing with IP addresses here; using multiple addresses is not suckpuppetry.
        2. The two edits linked that allegedly establish a connection between those two usernames were ten days apart. That's plenty of time for the IP address to be handed out to another user.
      • Please be careful when making such accusations. You need real evidence to back them up, not mere conjecture. --Chris (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Er whoops, should have said "So he's a sock puppet?", asking for verification >.<. JoshHolloway 17:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

31 Hours

I'm just wondering why a lot of admins block people for 31 hours. Anyone know why? --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact thing. It probably just because 31 hours is a day and a quarter. Cheers, PTO 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I use it sometimes because it will disrupt two school days. I imagine it's related to that somehow. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's also on the pull-down menu for block options. alphachimp. 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And the 24-hour option allows the vandal to return at the same time the next day to engage in whatever prohibited activities they were in. The 31-hour option mitigates that to some extent. --210physicq (c) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Drini started it, his explanation is here. I guess the point about disrupting the pattern of coming back the next day same time and continuing is why most people use it. The drop down for blocks is configurable by a Mediawiki: page, and it became popular enough to be added as one of the standard values. --pgk 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible bot

What do people think of a bot that looks up each user posted here, then removes them if they are already blocked? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been requested over on Wikipedia:Bot Requests. I think there's anything other than agreement that such a bot would be helpful. alphachimp. 20:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it shall be my next project then. Ah, found the request Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_8#WP:AIV-Clearing_Bot.3F. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The bot is almost done, I will make a request for approval soon. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect reports

What can be done to reduce the number of incorrect reports made on AIV? Every day we get dozens of reports where someone hasn't been warned, or hasn't edited since the final warning, or even hasn't edited for a week (I just removed one of those)! How about getting all reports to be done via a template which requires the reporter to link to the diff for the final warning, and the edit after that warning? I don't like the idea much, as it makes it much harder to report someone, which might reduce the number of correct reports we get (and thus, increase the amount of vandalism). Any better ideas? Sending messages to the reporter explaining their error, perhaps? --Tango 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What we could do, although it does involve more work, is to leave a note on the reporters userpage stating why their report was removed. I.e. educate people one at a time. Either that or just keep on removing them as we have always done. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Theresa. AIV shouldn't be any more cumbersome or time-consuming than it already is (for those without a mop and bucket). If I come across an incorrect report, I remove it and leave a note on the reporter's talk page explaining why and usually encouraging them to read the instructions at the top of the page (which should clear up most confusion). —bbatsell ¿? 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree: non-admins should remove users that will definitely not get blocked to save time for admins, such as users that have not received any warnings because they don't even have a talk page yet. Thinking more about this, though, where is the line? It seems reasonable for a non-admin to remove someone who has not edited in the past week, but what if it is the past 6 hours? Where is the line? I think there should be a more explicit policy for when non-admins are allowed to remove users from AIV.
Going back to the original topic, my other idea would be creating a template to be posted on the user's talk page explaining when it is proper to list another user on AIV, analagous to the kind of templates available at WP:UTM.Dar-Ape 00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I hate instruction creep though. I'm happy for non admin but experienced users to make a reasonable judgement call. If a non admin is not not happy to stand by their judgment then don't remove it. As for templates - personally I destest them. They are used way too often. If a user doesn't read the instructions on the top of the page why should they read a template message? A personal little note is much better IMO. More human. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Remove the report and note it in the edit summary is what I do. Lets try to make AIV as easy as possible. I just check a)talk page for time of final warning (one with big red hand), check time to see if last contrib was after last warning. Check last contrib for vandalism. Block. It's not that hard. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I only send a message if I notice that the same user has been erroneously (and consistently) listing several entries. Otherwise, I let my edit summaries do the talking. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
How many reporters read the edit summaries? Some, certainly, but I doubt all do, and it's probably those that don't that are the problem. --Tango 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there are many that read the edit summaries, nor do I expect them to, but if it's only done occasionally, it's not a problem in my eyes. Like I said, I only send a message for people to do it repeatedly, because those are the ones who would benefit most from being informed. Otherwise, considering the nature of how we process AIV, anything else would be approach instruction creep. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot

The testing trials of this bot are now active. Please give me feedback. It removes blocked people from the list. I am going to alter it to say List empty or List not empty soon. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to let this run overnight, as it seems to be working well. If something goes wrong do not hesitate to block it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Only one gripe -- as you may know, convention on AIV is to provide an edit summary saying "EMPTY" if an admin removes the last remaining user on AIV, so that other admins viewing the edit summary on their watchlists know that the list is empty; conversely, "NOT EMPTY" is written when entries still remain unresolved. Would it be a hassle to get the bot to check whether it is removing the last entry on the page, and if so, note this in its edit summary? Other than that, it's a fantastic idea and I imagine it will be a great help for admins in AIV's future. theProject 07:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You'd be happy to know that not only has that been suggested, but it'll be implemented tomorrow. Check out the bot approval request (I've got a couple of suggestions in). alphachimp. 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Drat -- just saw the bot's approval page and went to strike my comment out, too late. :-) theProject 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it ran last night without issue. That is good. I will be adding features today, and before long the bot will be stabilized. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A small typo occurred resulting in a bit of malfunctioning[2][3][4]. Sorry about that. I caught it in under a minute, another admin caught it faster hehe. I am running it attended, as before so any problems should be caught in under a minute.
I have added a counting option to tell how many users/ips are left or to display "List empty". That is the addition that caused the bug. Should be fine now. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I like how the bot's contribution log shows who is doing all the work on WP:AIV. Wait, not all the work, just all the blocking. The non-blocking part of AIV is very appreciated too. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
<3 the bot. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Less than 3? Ohhhh it is a heart, gee thanks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good so far, but make sure that it catches any cmments put under the block request as well. That may be hard to do especially if people add in a * before their comment when the request already has one, but it should be able to work. --Wizardman 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Gee I just realized if someone makes a comment after a vandal report my bot will leave the comments. Not sure how to deal with this. I suppose I could delete everything until the next line with a vandal report, but that may remove other items, such as improperly formatted requests(maybe that is a good thing). Any advice? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just let regular people remove extra comments. It's not too much of a hassal. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that is enough because when my bot removes a report the comments will appear to refer to another report. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I still think just removing everything up to the next report would be fine. If it removes a poorly formatted report... oh well, life goes on. -- Steel 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I will work on that today. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That should work. It it removes a poorly formatted report, that's the reporter's fault and not the bot's, so try that. --Wizardman 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
We'll need a new warning stating that badly formatted reports will get removed then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It will says something like 3 further lines removed(looked like comments) at the end of the edit summery. Since my bot cannot tell the difference between a comment and a badly formatted report this is the best it can do. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
But yes, a note on the instructions warning about this possibility would be very polite. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am also going to add a feature where it will not touch a report if <!-- Keep --> or something similar is placed on a line. Just in case a blocked user still requires discussion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Anything like that should be at ANI. I added some hidden comments in here. It looks better in the editing version. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'm sure many of us will be keepign an eye on it to make sure it's working right. Man, making a bot seems hard, lol. --Wizardman 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Making a bot is easy. Fulfilling feature requests is what makes it hard hehe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Can it make tea? -- Steel 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it help if we decided on a standardized formatting of comments? I've seen ::, **, :* for formatting. It kind of goes every which way. Though getting everybody to use that style might be a problem. -- Gogo Dodo 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It does seem like a lot to ask. I think the existing requirement of formatting a report is enough. A badly formatted report being removed seems better to me than a badly formatted comment being put next to a report that it does not belong with. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Honestly, I think it'd be a bit of instruction creep to give specific instructions. The bot removes comments between the listing of users, so it really shouldn't matter. alphachimp. 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you set the bot to monitor the bot-reported page, too? Nothing like a bot watching a bot. Makes me wonder if I'm going to be replaced with a bot next. =) -- Gogo Dodo 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Added to my feature request page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The bot will be offline for periods of time because I am not comfortable with leaving it unattended at this time(at least until it deals with comments properly). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
But then we'll have to remove them manually (we have bots do way too much for us now). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have comment removal working. It may still be buggy so please be patient if it removes something it should not. I am watching it for a while. I have already tested it with comments in a few different arrangements and it seems to be working. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The bot has been stable for the last 6 hours or so, so I am leaving it running overnight. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yay, it went through the night without disaster. I have added the remaining duration of the block to the edit summery, and later I will add the block type(Anon only, account creation, autoblock status). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One possible issue - with a bot removing blocked vandals so quickly, there isn't an opportunity for the blocking admin to give an explanation in the edit summary, which can sometimes be useful. I guess admins could remove the vandal before blocking, so the bot doesn't have anything to do with it, so it's not a serious issue, but it might be worth thinking about. Could the bot give the block reason in its edit summary, perhaps? --Tango 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit summery of my bot is already rather long. If I added the block reason to it, it would exceed the maximum length of the edit summery. Block reasons can be rather long. If an admin wants to put a comment in the edit summery when removing a report, then removing it first then blocking it would be the best way. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So the bot is now alerting us as to how much time remains on blocks? Or has your bot set up us the bomb and counting down to our demise?  :) Metros232 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it shows how long is remaining on the block, and which type of block it is. No bomb. It uses the timestamp in the http header from Wikipedia so the figures are very accurate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I know like nothing about bot implementation, but just a question for you. Would it be easier to just display the duration of the block rather than the duration remaining? For example, "6 weeks" seems a little more neat than "41d23h59m." It's not a huge thing to me either way, just curious if you have thoughts about it either way. Metros232 18:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think showing the time remaining is important as not everyone remove from the list was just blocked. Users are often added to the list long after they are blocked. What's more I would have to look into the block log aswell as the Ipblocklist as the Ipblocklist only gives the expiry time.
The format in the block log is so varied that I would have difficulties parsing it, for example "2 days" or "3 days and 4 hours" or "3 days 4 hours" or "17:19, 4 January 2007 +4 hours" are all valid. So finding a pattern that would isolate those would be alot harder and would result in a non-unified format in my edit summaries. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Nm, Ipblocklist gives the time of block aswell as the expiry, I have changed to to show the entire block length(which looks much prettier). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Block type abbreviations

I am going to add the type of block to my bot's edit summery. I was thinking of using the abbreviations AB(for autoblock), AO(for anon only), and AC(Account creation).

I plan to show it like this: AO or AC AO where the link is to a legend of what the abbreviations means. What do people think? Any better ideas? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AC and AO for sure, those are abbreviations that I think most of us are familiar with. Personally, I'm not as familiar with the "AB" abbreviation, but it's intuitive enough and if I'm the only one not familiar with it, I don't see why it shouldn't be used. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An alternative for autoblocks would be "auto". It's short enough, and obvious what it means. --Tango 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you implemented the block types. This bot is really taking off! --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. One more feature complete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AC for Account creation disabled seems a little counter intutive. How about NAC ("no account creation")? --Tango

It seems logical to me as it is. - the type of block is "a block on account creation", etc. I read it as "Block type: Account Creation (is blocked)" Perhaps it's just me … Tonywalton  | Talk 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Put that way, it does make sense. The reason I expected it to be the other way around before I actually read the legend was being the default is to block account creation, so I was expecting a mention in the summary to mean it was different from the default. It does make sense this way round, though, you're absolutely right. --Tango 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


From my code:
(push(@flags,'AO')) if ($data =~ m|anon\. only|);
(push(@flags,'AC')) if ($data =~ m|account creation blocked|);
(push(@flags,'ABD')) if ($data =~ m|autoblock disabled|);
It reads the words account creation blocked from the blocklist. I have made my flags in the same context that the MediaWiki engine keeps them in. This may not be the most intuitive order, but it is a standardized order(so you don't need to know two flagging systems to use both my bot and the blocklist). Perhaps ACB would be more clear? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me)
Account creation blocked is now abbreviated ACB, this should clear up the ambiguity. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Side effect of adding the SharedIP template

An IP user apologized after realizing the IP is shared[5].

I have noticed many shared IPs are blocked without such instructions for other users of the same IP. I suggest such information to be added in a special shared IP blocking template. --Skyfiler 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Find them in {{anonblock}} and {{schoolblock}}. But are they actually in use?--Skyfiler 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot report page now covered by HBC AIV helperbot

I thought it would be trickier than it was, but I found a very elegant solution[6]. Now this bot can perform this task to any number of pages. Testing now. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WoW

There appears to be a lot of WoW like vandalism going on, probably by the same person. Heads up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. We also are getting some WoW vandalism on Wikinews. FellowWikipedian 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What does "WoW" mean? How about a link? JRSpriggs 11:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It means the infamous vandal User:Willy on Wheels. FellowWikipedian 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Or one of his many wannabes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Or World of Warcraft. ;-) One person who put "WoW" in his username for this reason almost got blocked for it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

It looks like WP:PAIN may end up being removed. In that case, will personal attacks and incivility issues now be handled here? --Barberio 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:DR for disputes, WP:AIV for vandals (those who post trolling attacks only), WP:RFC for egrarious behavior, and take only extreme cases to WP:ANI. Please note that "you are an idiot" is uncivil, not vandalism. Do not flood AIV with non-vandal reports. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Some types of personal attacks are vandalism though, such as page defacement. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for userpages of blocked users to be protected

This is a bit of a problem. My bot will instantly remove things like this: [7].

I see a few solutions:

  1. We create a transcluded subpage, similar to the one the bots report to for requesting page protection on already blocked accoutns userpages. This requires no modification to my script.
  2. We create another template for reporting already blocked vandals such as {{blockedvandal|WoW has Aspergers, Obesity and Trisexual}}. This template can link to talk page and talk page history, and the talk page protection button. This would require a minor adjustment to my script(so it does not look like a comment), which is no problem. The added advantage to this method is that if for some other reason in the future a blocked user should remain on the list, the template will work for that too.
  3. Instruct people to go to WP:RFP. This is not a good solution in my opinion because blocked talk page vandals are dealt with much faster here.

What do people think? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Number 2 is interesting, but how would the bot remove it once the request was dealt with? Or would it not? --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I could have it check the protection logs, if that is the only reason a blocked user would be on the list. That is easy to program, but is that what we want? Failing that it could be done manually. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a section called "miscellaneous requests" that would not be patrolled by the bot and could deal with this type of situation and perhaps occasionally with other types of unanticipated situations outside the norm. Newyorkbrad 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, they shouldnt go here anyway. That is supposed to go to WP:RFPP or even WP:ANI. ViridaeTalk 20:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

These type of protection are obvious and common enough that they seem better handled here than RFP or ANI. RFP has a relatively slow response time and poor ANI is busy enough without getting requests that need no discussion. Just my two cents. I think {{Blockedvandal|user}} is the best idea, because it would allow the bot to automatically remove the user when the page is protected. I already wrote the subroutine:
sub check_protection
  {
  my $c = shift;
  my $page = shift;
  my $data = $c->{ua}->get($c->{index}."?title=Special:Log&type=protect&page=$page")->content();
  $data =~ m/\[edit=(sysop|autoconfirmed):move=(sysop|autoconfirmed)\]/;
  my $edit = ($1 || undef);
  my $move = ($2 || undef);
  return ($edit,$move);
  }
Pretty small ehh? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The bot would only remove a Blockedvandal if it was blocked, and the talk page was protected. If it is posted as a Blockedvandal but not blocked, it can leave a comment below the name pointing out it is not blocked. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure these kind of requests should be coming to AIV anyway. Probably best to contact the admin that rejected the unblock request (in the vast majority of cases, there will be one). It's hardly an urgent matter, if they can only edit one page. --Tango 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that certainly makes things easier for me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

After a recent "final warning"

How recent does the final warning have to have been? I'm looking at an anon who has received T1, T3, and got a T4 three weeks ago, and in their very next edit (today) was back to vandalizing. Is three weeks not "recent"—especially with no edits in between? --Walor 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not generally how that works, no. The point is to block the actual vandal. With three weeks between edits, it's unlikely to be the same person so the warnings don't apply. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Depends. it could well be a school which has been out of session for a few weeks. It's not like we don't want to discourage vandals from vandalizing once a month.Gzuckier 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That was a lot of negatives! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The only 2 cases where I would block a vandal on a 3 week old warning is if they've just come off a 3 week block or if they are clearly the same person (vandalising the same pages, perhaps). It really isn't hard to add {{bv}} to their talk page and wait for one more act of vandalism. --Tango 01:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiDefon

The WikiDefcon template was added earlier today and I don't think it's all that helpful. The level is arbitrary and doesn't help AIV handling. It's not like more admins show up just because it's level High or people have to report vandals differently. My opinion is that it just adds clutter to an already packed header without any substantial benefit. Thoughts about keeping or removing it? -- Gogo Dodo 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly useful, no. But personally, I'd go after all the stuff that's taking up the vertical space first. I hate having to scroll down to see the actual reports. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it should go too. Once trolls get wind of it they will start to play - increase the defcon! It will only do us harm to have it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd take it out as well, for what Theresa knott said. Just attracts vandals. Veinor (talk to me) 22:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd get rid of it too, but I'd also dump some of the other stuff grabbing vertical space. --Matthew 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, too soft

I report repeat vandals; and what happens? My reports are dismissed because he has not vandalized in the last couple hours or it is from a school or whatever. You guys need to get some intestinal fortitude (in lieu of cruder language). BLOCK THESE BASTARDS! They are just going to keep vandalizing, if you do not. JRSpriggs 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that you've been reporting IP addresses. In which case, the reason they haven't been blocked is because there is a good chance that that IP address will be used by completely different people in the next 24 hours, so, if the vandal is going to keep going, a block of an IP address they happened to use a few hours ago isn't going to stop them. If you were reporting registered users, then someone probably made a mistake and they should have been blocked. --Tango 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Lighten up. I've been blocking vandals for years. Trust me, they are not bastards they are kids. No need to get emotionally involved. There will always be more vandals, and we will always be able to cope with them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem (which should be obvious to all of us) is that I spend a significant fraction of my time on Wikipedia reverting vandalism. And much of the rest of my time here is checking to make sure that no vandalism occurred to one of the articles I watch or that someone else repaired it. The cost of fighting vandalism is a limiting factor on our ability to improve (or even preserve) Wikipedia. There has to be some way to transfer that cost back to the vandals or we will drown in a sea of vandalism. Theresa, you should not count the value of other editor's time so cheaply. Many people have quit editing because of this problem. JRSpriggs 09:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
JRSpriggs, we appreciate the volunteer hours that you put in helping Wikipedia. If the particular task of reverting vandalism is wearing on you, do something more enjoyable for awhile. Others are here to pick up the slack. Overall your time spent helping Wikipedia needs to be a nice experience. You are the best person to make it that way by finding tasks that are enjoyable. Take care, FloNight 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In response, it is not as simple as packing up and going to work on some other articles. I personally still feel disheartened and discouraged knowing that the value of my contributions to the 'pedia on whichever articles I'm working on is diminished by someone else who's busy vandalising or filling some other articles with unreferenced crap. Zunaid©Review me! 13:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, blocking an IP address that the vandal is no longer using doesn't reduce vandalism. It's more likely to reduce useful contributions. If we could make a serious impact on vandalism by blocking any IP address that has even vandalised, without harming Wikipedia, we would ban them all in an instant, but that just wouldn't work. --Tango 16:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you reported on January 4th [8] and [9]. Both of them are shared IPs. Neither of them wree active when you reported them. Neither had edited remotely close to the time you reported them, therefore, they were inactive. The first one hasn't been warned since December 22. You felt the need to report them but not warn them? It's a shared IP, the same user isn't using it each time so warnings are appropriate. This is why your reports were removed, not because we're too soft, but because we recognize that more than one person uses these IPs. Metros232 16:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

When deciding whether to block IPs, is any attempt made to determine whether the IP is static or dynamic? In my view that would make a big difference in determining what frequency of vandalism merits a block. If the IP is static, it's far more likely that it's the same individual doing the vandalism each time. Raymond Arritt 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If some group, e.g. an elementary school, has an unusually high level of vandalism, then perhaps it is best to block the whole group (IP address). The rule on open proxies amounts to such a policy for a restricted set of groups. If we do not expand that policy, why should the ISPs ever modify their policy of anonymity? Did we not go through something like this with AOL? JRSpriggs 11:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify that I am not doing recent changes patrolling. I am just trying to maintain the 446 articles on my watch-list. I know that that is a lot of articles and I am constantly removing articles from my list. But it just seems to keep growing (as things I edit are automatically added and I add few that catch my interest). JRSpriggs 05:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have an interesting perspective to add to this discussion. I'm an Orthodox Jew and I observe Shabbat every week. That means from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday I have to go cold turkey from my Wikipediholism. When I check my watchlist after Shabbat, while I usually see that a lot has been going on, I also see that most of the bad stuff has been handled by other Wikipedians. My dad used to say that nobody's indispensable, not even the President. We all have to realize that this project won't collapse if one of us wants to take a break from Vandal patrolling. Was it Jimbo who said that Wikipedia's not vandal proof, but it is vandal resilient? --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you may be right. Let other people clean up vandalism and spam. It really isn't worth the time to undo the vandalism, give a report on the talk page and report it here. For amusement, it may be worth looking at vandal's talk pages to see just how many "last warnings" they have received, but actually doing anything is not productive use of time. Wrs1864 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An anon vandal changing IP address

Recently I have noticed a vandal making damage to the Kateřina Jacques page. The vandalism seems to be done by one anon, but his IP address is always different. It always starts 71.99..., but the rest of the address is different. Sometimes he can be recognized by adding insults (in English or Czech language) to the summary. Is there anything that can be done in such a case? Jan.Kamenicek 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can block the entire range. I've never done that before, though, so I'll let someone that knows what they're doing deal with it. I'm not awake enough to learn new things at the moment - time for bed soon. --Tango 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The new thing is that my talk page was vandalized with vulgarisms in Czech language. I put some vandalism templates on his talk page, but he just laughed at me, because he knows he can change the address. It would be really great, if you could help. Jan.Kamenicek 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry a range block of the entire range would block way too many IP adresses. I only ever do blocks like that in absolute emergencies. Is he only vandalising the one article? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I said it was time for bed 3 hours ago, but I'm still here. I've taken a closer look, and I agree, the range is far too big to block for the sake of one article. Semi-protection (as Theresa has done) is the best solution. He's only used 6 IP addresses in the last month, by my count, so it wouldn't be hard to block them all individually - it's not necessary while the page is protected, though. --Tango 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that he can use more than just those six, but it is true that the range is too large. Thank you for your help. Jan.Kamenicek 13:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How does one request semi-protection? From whom? Is there a help page for it? JRSpriggs 10:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Try WP:RFP. Regards, Tonywalton  | Talk 10:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. JRSpriggs 10:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to the template?

I was in a bold kinda mood so I just went ahead and dumped a whole load of stuff that no one ever reads anyway.I feel we should keep this page short and sweet. We could add a link to a help page so that if people want more instructions they can find them I suppose. What do you think? Have I gone too far? (or not far enough?) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, I think we went in opposite directions. I added a show/hide link on the page so we could get to the reports quicker. You removed all of the content. I'm not sure which is better. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Or we can combine the two ideas. I'll try that now. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think maybe you cut a little too much. For example, I think the Editors and Only List Here sections are necessary. Without instructions for new-to-AIV reporters, we're going get some malformed or under-warned reports (not that doesn't happen already). The Admins and DoS sections might work well as a Show/Hide thing. -- Gogo Dodo 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OK well I'm off to bed. I'm sure you'll do a grand job, but do try to remove the huge amount if instruction creep that's on the page. Nighty night Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to have wdefcon on the template, as it could help people decide to keep up vandal fighting, or go back and making articles. →AzaToth 23:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We have enough people adding incorrect reports as it is, removing the instructions won't help. Why not just put a link at the top to take people to the reports, like the one at the top of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? And, for the reasons other people have stated above, adding the defcon template will do more harm than good. --Tango 01:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't mind all the instruction. No, it doesn't help us much, but they may help new folks. All I cared about was being able to hide all that when I need to... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm hoping that removing the instrictions will help. In my experience, most incorrect reports are the result of people ignoring the instructions that I left on the page rather than the ones I removed. I'm hoping that by keeping the instructions very short there is a greater chance that they will actually be read by a newbie. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, may I propose changing The vandal is active now, has been warned, and has vandalised after the warning to The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalised after a last warning?--Húsönd 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind the slimmer look, but hated the color scheme, went back to one closer to the old one. — xaosflux Talk 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, it looks a lot better now without all the extra instructions at the top. Thanks a lot for the time you guys have put in. --Matthew 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we need instructions about using the {{vandal}} and {{IPvandal}} templates. It's explained in comments in the code, but I doubt many people will read that. --Tango 13:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I have sometimes corrected other people's reports (the templates) so a nice clear set of instructions would be good that don't take up much room. The new template on top looks much better by the way. James086Talk | Contribs 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Only warning?

When is it appropriate to use the test4im template? (You know, the one that says "this is the only warning you will receive".) RedRollerskate 16:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When they make intentional vandalism to user pages/user talk pages, policies and guideline pages. There would be other examples as well. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Any time when you are absolutely sure the vandalism was in bad faith. If there is any possibility it was a genuine test, then you need to give them the usual warnings. I would suggest only using it in cases of particularly disruptive vandalism. --Tango 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to sound like an echo, but I use it whenever I run across someone who is making edits that, in no possible way, can be seen as good faith (vandalizing a bunch of unrelated articles with practically the same comment is a good example). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User creating multiple articles

The User:Wol786 keeps on creating multiple articles, such as follows:

List of Rawalakotis and when this was put up for discussion he goes on to create Rawalakoti there is not difference between the articles. Than he will keep on putting multiple pictures on article Rawalakot even when the pictures are exactly the same. He wont even read his discussion page. So someone please tell him to take care and not to do this.

Maybe the user does not understand the basic rules so needs to be explained

trueblood 03:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Try sending him an e-mail. JRSpriggs 09:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammers?

Is this the right place to report persistent spammers? Tocharianne 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If they have been warned from {{welcomespam}} or {{spam1}} to {{spam4}}, and they are still spamming, sure! -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:AIV may be of more use, make sure that they are warned past the last spam warning. Arjun 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This is WP:AIV, or at least the talk page for it. Oo -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, I guessed Tocharianne knew about that, but I stand corrected :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes.--Wizardman 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Eek!!! I clicked the wrong link and I thought that this was the WP:ANB! Oh well you get the point :) Arjun 04:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert and report

I'm seeing a slightly disturbing trend lately where people are reporting vandals here but not reverting the vandalism itself. Apparently we need to encourage people to revert as well as report. (I'm not even talking about 2-week-old vandalism that was missed - I'm talking about where someone reported here about a single vandalism edit to article X but I watched article X and it was never reverted until I did several minutes later.) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed an increase of the reports where an IP vandal has vandalized recently, but their test4 was issued several days ago or some variant of that (warned piles of times months ago but never blocked, and is now back). Is this and the above due to the shortening of the instructions or just coincidental? -- Gogo Dodo 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's just a function of people being sloppy, I don't think adding back in more instructions will reduce the number of users who just report vandals or report vandals without appropriate warnings. --Matthew 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the warning ladder has been confusing people for as long as I've been here. But not reverting the vandalism you report seems like a recent lapse in common sense that we shouldn't need to include in instructions. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they are being sloppy, but instead they want to work faster. Apparently, lately quantity is more important than quality. I work with copyvios, and usually users tag articles as copyvio but never care informing the user that their article has been put into speedy deletion. The same happens when prodding, or tagging images. From time to time, when it becomes serious (in example, many of such tags without informing users) I tell them. But otherwise, I do not really mind doing that myself. -- ReyBrujo 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not that RC Patrollers are doing a crappy job. They are to be strongly commended for the effort they are putting in. The trouble is that: a) Vandalproof is not functioning properly and AmiDaniel has not fixed a significant error; b) vandalism, particularly during the US midday, appears to be increasing significantly. I am seeing more and more vandalism escape RC patrol entirely. They are overwhelmed. alphachimp 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure weather to hope for another VP release that will be stable of hope the AWB team's IRCMonitor gets finished. RC patrolling may suck right now (it does, IMHO), but that doesn't relieve people RC patrolling from having to meet the same high standard of precision in dealing with vandals and vandalism. Reverting every bad edit, warning the vandal, checking the vandal's past contributions for other on-top edits, and reporting them after the last warning. Jimbo's quote about being nice to maniacs is totally right on, even though it may be really annoying. Yeah there are good reasons why RC patrollers are getting buried and rushing, but, in my thoughts at least, that doesn't make it okay to rush through and leave things done halfway. --Matthew 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If there are a lot of articles vandalised and AIV isn't backlogged, I think it's reasonable for a user not to doggedly revert it manually, because when an admin comes round he can use rollback to take the whole lot out in seconds. Even popups is fiddly compared to rollback. I had a fake-rollback tool before I was an admin but I don't think it ever worked on users' contribution lists (and it still worked more slowly than proper rollback).
The main problem I find is users posting content disputes over fancruft, where if users change some fictional details it's very difficult, if not impossible, for admins to tell whether it's misinformation that rises to the level of vandalism, or a content dispute. One of the things that makes it much more likely that I'll remove the report is to see the supposed vandalism unreverted despite being around for a while. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Autobacklog

An idea has been proposed several times to have HBC AIV helperbot automatically add and remove the backlog notice on WP:AIV.

Basically the current line:

{{noadminbacklog}} <!-- {{noadminbacklog}} or {{adminbacklog}} -->

would be replaced with something like this:

{{noadminbacklog}} <!-- Autobacklog=On AddLimit=15 RemoveLimit=5 -->

Where Limit would be the number of reports needed to set the backlog to on. The Autobacklog parameter could be set to Off(or anything but on/On) to temporarily disable autobacklog function. This way the use of the function can be determined by regular editing/consensus.

What do people think? Pending a consensus here to implement this idea, I will code it then request an expansion in my bots approval to cover this. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, as the most recent editor to propose this. Sandstein 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would be a good idea, but I think it should have some sort of memory, so that once it's marked as backlog, it shouldn't remove it until there are less than say 2-3 reports left. →AzaToth 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Great idea but it would need to have a lower limit too (i.e. IF NumberOfReports <6 THEN RemoveBacklog). Asteriontalk 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure! Could you have a list of admins somewhere, so that as soon as a "limit" hits, the bot automatically post a message in their talk pages to gather their attention? -- ReyBrujo 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    With this I mean, a list of admins who are willing to come here to help. Or maybe just posting an automated message at WP:AN informing about the limit. Of course, then you would have to consider other variables, like time since the last backlog, so that it won't spam talk pages or the noticeboard. -- ReyBrujo 20:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea. I'm guessing the bot can be programmed to take it off also. I would suggest over 6 or 7 = backlog. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can have it add it when it exceeds the AddLimit parameter, then remove it when it drops below the RemoveLimit parameter. Good idea. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Notifying users that there is a backlog is really a job for another bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have written the code to do this[10], I have made the request for approval: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot 2. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How easy would it be to have a time parameter too? "IF there are reports more than X hours old THEN add the backlog tag." Old reports often aren't a problem on AIV, since it generally means the vandal has stopped, but I think it should still be counted as a backlog. Informing admins of a backlog could be done with a template that admins put on their user page/talk page similar to the defcon thing. --Tango 10:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible, however, if someone has been there for that long, and the number of reports is not growing to backlog sizes, then people must be aware of it. I have never seen that happen. As for notifying people on their talk pages, that is a job for a dedicated bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Autobacklog implemented

It is now running, just as described above. I did some testing on a sandbox page and it seems to work fine. Now I just have to wait for a backlog to test it. If there is a problem with this new function you can change <!-- Autobacklog=On AddLimit=10 RemoveLimit=5 --> to <!-- Autobacklog=Off AddLimit=10 RemoveLimit=5 --> to disable it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a slight modification from the above instructions. The backlog will now be added when the number of reports reaches the value, as opposed to my first plan which was when the number of reports passed the values. Basically I used >= instead of >. This seems more intuitive to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! I've tried to adjust the explanatory comments in the header accordingly. We may want to put a permanent condensed version of the bot instructions in a messagebox at the top of this talk page. Sandstein 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than post to other users' talk pages, which would in my opinion post a lot of messages to admins who can't do anything about them (because they're offline), what about having a template which, when AIV becomes backlogged, the bot writes "AIV is backlogged" in it, in some sort of box, and when the backlog is cleared the bot blanks it? Admins could then transclude it to the top of their talk page, and whenever there was a backlog the message would appear. When it was gone the page would go back to normal. We might even add it to WP:AN and WP:ANI, although perhaps that would be information overload on those pages. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the bot to post a notice on the IRC vandal channel or simlar when becklogged activates. →AzaToth 16:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Samuels idea would be easy to implement if there is a demand for it. As for the IRC channel, that would be better served by another bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV Barnstar?

I am thinking about creating a barnstar for users that frequently bring vandals to AIV. It has gotten a lot easier for us admins to deal with vandals, but it is just as much work for RC patrollers to revert, warn, report and track our many vandals. It is even worse without VandalProof working properly. What would you think of creating such an award? alphachimp 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the idea but I don't think it'll help much. If anything, it might even raise the number of poor reports we get here. -- Steel 00:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I would much rather be removing poor reports than getting no reports at all. Anything that brings attention to vandal fighting or methods for stopping vandalism would seem pretty good to me. alphachimp 00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
After being initally skeptical, alphachimp's last point has sold me, I think it's a great idea. --Matthew 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea alpha. I support it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What kind of criteria would you look at for the barnstar? Frequency of reports? Calibre of report (as in, how well the report explained the issue)? Amount of "successful" (for lack of a better word) reports? -Painezor TC 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As it is with any barnstar, the criteria is left up to the editor awarding said award. --210physicq (c) 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind hearing the opinion of a no-name user, I think it's a great idea. As Alpha said, we'd bring in a lot more reports (I'm not saying that admins don't have enough to deal with in the first place), though we'd probably also get a lot of dab reports from users in hopes of getting an award, which isn't what the whole barnstar idea is about. // PoeticDecay 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars should NOT be used to increase productivity.. it kills the essence of the award. I am against the idea... we already have Rickk's Anti-Vandalism Barnstar.. People that work a lot under AIV should be awarded this barnstar.. since it's basically Counter-Vandalism --Deenoe 02:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
My goal is not to increase productivity (although that would be nice). It's to encourage recognition of those who revert vandalism and routinely report it here. A lot of these guys (see User:Ryulong already have a lot of RickK's barnstar. It's the only counter vandalism barnstar I know of. This would just be another way to recognize their efforts. alphachimp 05:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I definetly support the idea. I think those people who report here should be recognized for their efforts. Megalodon99 (Talk) 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Gratned we get more than enough non-warned andals sent here adn that may increase, but if it helps fight vandalism it's worth it.--Wizardman 03:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to reward someone for reporting vandals, just go ahead and do it. We already have the RickK Anti-Vandalism barnstar, various other awards (such as the vandal whacking stick), and if none of those suit, just give them the original barnstar, or even make your own (all you need is to find an appropriate picture and use one of the generic award templates). Did Esperanza get restored while I was in an exam? If you think someone deserves a barnstar, just give them one - the idea of barnstars is as simple as that and should never need protracted discussion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sort of on the fence about such an idea. Many have pointed out that the Anti-vandal star does sufficiently reward users for deterring Wikipedia vandalism and I agree with them on that. As far as promoting reports, it is a constructive effort to encourage more users to utilize this page more often but should barnstars be used in such a bribing fashion? On the other hand, this page is an asset to both Wiki-admins and non-admins, so I do see why you may believe it to be beneficial to reward users for increasing the productivity and effectiveness of this page. If such an award was proposed on Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals, I would probably reiterate what I said here and submit my vote as a neutral. My apologies for being a fence-sitter :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Use semi-protection more often

As some of you have said above, those who are fighting vandalism are overwhelmed. I asked at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for semi-protection for Newton's laws of motion which had been being vandalized daily (or more often) by IP-vandals. Virtually all edits were either vandalism or attempts to revert that vandalism (it is a mature article). Fortunately, the request was granted on 12 January 2007 although it was said to be a marginal case. There has not been one act of vandalism since then. JRSpriggs 10:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of page protection (semi- or complete) as a routine measure to fight vandalism. Every user starts as an anonymous user until they want to become more involved with the project. I'm not sure that it's worth the convenience in our lives to discourage someone who could have a lot to offer the project. --Matthew 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection should be used if it isn't reasonable to revert all the vandalism. I haven't looked at the history, but from what you say, it sounds like a few edits a day at most - all it needs is a few people to put the article on their watchlist, and there's no problem. --Tango 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Protection is contrary to wikipedia's long-term philosophy... that needs to be carefully weighed against the harm that vandalism causes. It's a delicate balance. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is true that I did not become a registered user until after I had been doing edits for a couple weeks as an unregistered user. However, vandalism is a major depressing factor and I think that we should not blindly stick to a one-sided approach. Whether we protect a page or not should depend on the situation of that page. JRSpriggs 07:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

{{test3}} and beyond warnings...

Can we actually print in BOLD letters somewhere on the page that the IP must have been warned by a {{test3}} or beyond before being posted here? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We could, and I agree it is annoying when the talk pages don't have lvl3s and above. The problem is I think people are forgetting to issue them. One look at the contrib page of the IP address makes it very clear that a lvl4 should have already been issued.--LifeStar 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, instruction creep isn't going to help make the process any smoother, it will just suffocate the really important instructions that are on the page. --Matthew 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

geography hater

May I suggest that you read this : [11] (marxian subsection) and this [12] (obscure academic). This person is trying to undermine our work on articles about prominent geographers. I am not sure I should be posting this here but then where else? Zigzig20s 13:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you bring this up at wikiproject geography. He's definitely not vandalising, and some of his points are acceptable (even if his tone is not). If he really thinks they aren't notable, he should open an AfD on one of the articles in question. I wouldn't assume bad faith on his part, though. yandman 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright...As you said his 'tone' is unacceptable. I still think those are prominent geographers - people may want to look them up. Anyway, I'll move to Wikiproject geography then, thank you for redirecting me. Zigzig20s 13:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

user 70.143.27.98 vandalizing.

User:70.143.27.98

This user has vandalized--not just once, but three times-- this article page: [13] I fixed this user's vandalism, as I was viewing that page at the time, but this user has done this three times according to history.

Note: According to this user's history, several article pages have been vandalized by this user. Intervention is recommended.

Link to user's history: [[14]] --NitemareDragon 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. In future, please list vandalism reports on AIV proper, not this talk page. Thanks.
  2. While there is a history of vandalism from this IP, it is a shared IP and also has some useful edits. Given that, it's especially important that
  3. the IP has received relevant warnings recently (preferably {{test3}}, {{test4}} or {{bv}}) — this IP hadn't been warned since December 4th.
That said, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I've warned the IP, and if he vandalizes the page again please post on WP:AIV. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot Hiccup

You may have noticed the bot stopped working for a little while, this was due to this[15] edit. I returned it as I assumed it's removal was accidental. My bot skips till the line with --> so as to avoid being triggered by the template examples. Should this section need to be removed or changed, it would not be difficult at all to fix the bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It happened again (at 11PM-ish, not 10PM-ish as I stated in my edit summary - which one's the big hand and which one's the little hand again?) I've added a "reports below this line" comment in the hope that if anything gets deleted by accident that will, rather than the line containing the pattern the bot's looking for. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That fixed it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That problem will not happen again, I fixed it: [16] HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Feedback to reporters

I had a read through the responses to the sections above on the AIV Barnstar and reports of unwarned vandals. I am neither an admin nor a vandal patroller but I use this page occasionally when I see vandalism - normally on a page I'm watching. One thing that strikes me is that is would be be useful to give reporters feedback on their reports. You could design a template quite easily that says, either "Thanks for your report on User:xxx, they have been blocked" or "Thanks for your report on User:xxx, they cannot be blocked as they haven't been warned - please do not list them here until they have been warned first and reoffended". The feedback could then be given by the amdin doing the blocking (or even a BOT (??)). You needn't necessarily give feedback al the time, but it might be useful where the same users are persistently making false reports and could do with some "education" AndrewRT(Talk) 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins do, on accasion, speak to people if they add inapropriate reports. But to be honest, adding even a template to tell someone "thanks for reporting the vandal" seems like a bit of an effort for little gain to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Most admins who decline to block on a given report will give the reason in the edit summary removing the report from the page, so a reporting editor who is interested in the outcome of a given "case" can watchlist AIV or check the history for that. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

At peak times it's often very difficult to read through the history and tell when your vandal hasn't been blocked, HighInBC's bot has made it easier by showing pretty clearly when someone is blocked, but its still tough to know if that vandal you thought was borderline got blocked or not. AndrewRT makes a great point in that for an average user it's nice to receive feedback on the vandals you report so you know when you're screwing up before you do it too much. (Hurrah! for closed loop systems!) --Matthew 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm a lazy, lazy bastard, I wonder if we should make a template to leave for users who leave reports that don't need intervention? I just left a note on a user's talk page explaining how to check the date of the last warning and make sure it's recent, and how to leave new warnings for users. I'd be more inclined to give feedback to misreports if I could just type subst:aivr-report or the like. I suppose I could draft something up, if I thought others would use it. -- Merope 18:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be helpful for admins to have a template to use in the situations described by Merope, but (speaking as someone who has reported vandals, with varying results) I think that routine feedback to reporters would be both unnecessary effort on the part of the reporter and unnecessary clutter on the Talk page of the recipient. I keep my reportees (and warn-ees) on my watchlist, so I can tell when they are blocked or re-warned, and if I want to know why an admin did not act, it's easy enough to search for my username on the Administrator intervention history page. --orlady 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely unnecessary effort on the part of admins. Frankly, reacting to premature/malformed/misplaced reports takes enough time without having to go other to the reporter's talk page - and watchlist it for further replies (I support thread continuity). I don't want people to be afraid of making reports for fear that it'll be rejected - but if you want to know what happened to it, check the history. And a much more productive use of time than checking the history would be to continue patrolling for new vandals, rather than checking ones that have been dealt with.--Sam Blanning(talk) 03:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Small fix on bot

Ok, instead of skipping down to the bottom of the comments on the AIV page as it did, the bot now simply ignores the username username[17]. The bot should now continue working even if someone plays with the comments, as long as the example name in the instructions remains username. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you also should ignore the IP 127.0.0.1 :) →AzaToth 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, developers use 127.0.0.1, what if they start vandalizing?? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New on/off switch for helperbot

Since I put in an on/off switch for the autobacklog function of HBC AIV helperbot I decided to put an on/off switch onto the remove blocked user function. Now you have turn each function of the bot on and off independently on each page it services by adjusting the parameter line. Anything that is not 'on'(case insensitive) will be seen as off. In the event of a malfunction, this would be an easier alternative to blocking the bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good. I've summarised the bot syntax in a messagebox at the top, for newcomers. Sandstein 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot alerts

Occasionally, Shadowbot comes across a persistent spammer, who is then reported on IRC. Would it be appropriate if Shadowbot were to report spammers to the Bot Reported section along with AVB, or should I just create another page for this? Shadow1 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It'd be appropriate to report it to the AVB page. VoABot also reports there. alphachimp 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok then. Shadow1 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of actioning

I've been going through the history of this page and there seems to be a problem with the order in which things are actioned. Users are asked to add newer items at the bottom. Presumably this means that admins should start work at the top?? What seems to be happening at the moment is that the bottom ones are being actioned first, meaning that in busy times, the ones at the top take ages to be actioned. If you agree, should the instructions for admins be changed somewhere?AndrewRT(Talk) 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Noooooooooooo! please keep the instructions simple. You cannot force people to use common sense via instructions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I take them in the order that seems most logical at the time. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of priority system could be implemented, so if those that create the vandal (or whatever) reports could add a parameter that classed the vandal (or whatever) on a scale of least to most important to deal with. Thoughts? -- KirinX 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see the point. Thee idea of this page was that it was for urgent cases only anyway. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that further formal instructions for "order of processing" are not necessary. Normally I assume an admin would start with the oldest, i.e., the report on top, but sometimes the description will make it clear that a newer report is particularly urgent. If an editor on this page writes "vandal has blanked userpages of 10 editors who have reverted him" or "vandal has repeatedly put obscenities into the first sentence of today's FA after bv warning" then any reviewing admin would know those should be dealt with out of sequence. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. -- KirinX 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite often start at the bottom. A half hour old report at the top is often of a vandal that's stopped vandalising since the report, so there is no urgency. A report that has just been made in the last couple of minutes is probably a vandal that is still going and needs to be blocked quickly. If we've built up a backlog, it's often too late to do much with the ones at the top - priority should always go to where you can do most good. --Tango 11:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Redbud

A question. Is it vandalism to replace a picture of a tree in a tree taxobox with a picture of a bee. Or is User:Pollinator just having a little joke at my expense? See Eastern Redbud. You can answer here. I'll check back. OKtag 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not really appropriate but you should always assume good faith. Give Pollinator a test1 now. If s/he keeps doing it after being told to stop, then yes, it's vandalism. RedRollerskate 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think sticking a template on an established user's talk page will come off as rude. I don't know what pollinator was up to, but I just reverted him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, all. OKtag 03:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, test1 isn't appropriate for established users - they clearly aren't experimenting. A handwritten message is probably best, asking what he was doing. --Tango 11:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Test3 not a final warning?

Previously the instructions explicitly mentioned that test3, test4 or blatantvandal are considered final warnings. It's discussed on this talk page above by several people that test3 was still considered so as of January 17, but it was made non-explicit to avoid instruction creep.

I reported a user who vandalised after test3, and was told it needed to be test4. Did consensus change between then and now? TransUtopian 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, test4 is widely considered final warning, while test3 is considered severe warning. Warning them once more won't do anyone harm. --210physicq (c) 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I would consider any warning that mentions the possibility of a block is a valid final warning. No need to even use templates if you don't want to. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, test4 specifically states "The next time you will be blocked", whereas test3 (now vand3, according to WP:TT) just says "If you continue, you may be blocked". Test4 makes it clear it's a final warning, but vand3 doesn't. Hersfold (talk|work) 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, it still suits as a final warning. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I know not how others may do it, but it is against my inclination to block on a test3 unless absolutely necessary. But let's get back to writing an encyclopedia (or blocking vandals), shall we? --210physicq (c) 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally regard vandalism after a test3, in which they are warned that they could be blocked, as worthy of a block. ViridaeTalk 06:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider any warning which includes the word "block" as a final warning. I'd leave it to the reporter's discretion whether to report after test3 or test4. --Tango 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some of this was helpful. (from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/header) Theresa Knott and others reduced the instructions to make it easier for admins to read AIV, but I found the Editors and Only list here if parts extremely useful reading.
If the show/hide functionality of the current template is retained and the WikiDefcon is removed, is it all right to restore these instructions?
I'll take it under advisement that a few admins don't consider test3 to be a reportable/final warning, and it's under admin's discretion. TransUtopian 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I couldn't care less about the templates; if someone is warned with Test2 and then, for example, changes User:HighInBC to say "I'm a dick", slapping them with Test3 or Test4 doesn't matter; they're obviously uninterested in improving the encyclopedia, and should be dealt with accordingly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:BEANS, WP:BEANS, the musical fruit... yeah, I generally consider vandalism after a test3 to be sufficient. Some folks like to warn with a test4 after a test3, some like to report after a test3. The little distinction I seem to remember from days of yore is that a test4 was most appropriate for use by an admin who could actually back up the threat with an actual immediate block, whereas test3 was most appropriate for a normal editor who needed admin intervention to enact a block. Of course, with the existence of WP:AIV, that old distinction is largely gone. Now, it's really up to the judgement of the editor whether to use test3 or test4, and likewise up to the admin whether to block after a test3 or require a test4 first; however, requiring a test4 after a post-test3-vandalism seems to have a slight whiff of m:instruction creep to it... --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
A new more consistant warning system is coming down the pike. Check out this page for something thats nearly the final draft. The testN should end up being used less-frequently. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Holy instruction creep, Batman! Not so difficult for us admins, since level-3 and level-4 warnings are the same in terms of admin action, but pity the poor fool who has to try and figure out what warning to use! --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

For all users:

Remember to use the new user warning templates, which have gone through an extensive overhaul. The new templates may be found here. Please try to change over to the new templates.

For all administrators:

Please note the new blocking templates. Use {{uw-block1}} for a first block on an ID/IP, {{uw-block2}} for subsequent blocks that have a specific duration, and use {{uw-block3}} for indefinite blocks. Syntax for uw-block1 and uw-block2 are as follows:

{{subst:uw-block1|Duration (optional)|For a different reason (optional)|sig=n}} (sig=n allows you to place your signature outside of the box)

And for indefinite blocks:

{{subst:uw-block3|For a different reason (optional)|sig=n}} (sig=n allows you to place your signature outside of the box)

For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to have pastel boxes in our block messages? I'd rather have a block message show up as normal text, without a pastel box, because it looks more like a normal talk page message, rather than an infobox. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I personally think there's nothing more m:instruction creep then telling us what exactly is to go in the block reason field. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't my decision to make -- don't shoot the messenger! Comments can be directed to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace or to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings, but if you want to use plain text, use it while you still can -- the old templates will be redirected within a few weeks if things go as planned. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal template

From WP:RFCN:

The HBC AIV helperbot said in its edit summary that this user was a "comment," and I don't understand why it said that. I think this User should be blocked for this very offensive Username. Acalamari 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked it was removed as a comment because you didn't follow the posting instructions and use the {{Vandal}} template[18]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
See[19], it cannot tell the difference between a report and a signature if you just wikilink to the name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. That user wasn't a vandal (not yet anyway), and I have reported other Users without that tag. Should I put the tag in, regardless if the User has an offensive Username or a vandal? Acalamari 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well that is true. However it is the current practice to use {{vandal}} or {{IPvandal}}. I think that only usernames you believe to be made in bath faith should be reported there. I have always questioned the title of the vandal templates myself as lacking the good faith required for dealing with potential vandals. The short answer is yes use the {{vandal}} template for offensive usernames if you don't want the bot to remove them. You may wish to bring this up on the AIV talk page, I will certainly participate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved this here because there are some interesting points raised, and I would like more opinions. The user in question, User:Igotfuckedbyman, while having an offensive name was not vandalizing. Perhaps an alias to the {{vandal}} template with a more neutral name? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...I think a new template would be a good idea: one for Usernames. If the offensive Username was a vandal, it wouldn't matter which tag you would use, but if the User simply had an offensive Username, a Username tag would be very useful. Acalamari 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is the {{User}} tag, I can add that to my bot, but it does lack the quick links to the block and talk pages. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Potentially offensive usernames usually require some more thought than a simple vandalism-examination. I think a potentially offensive username that hasn't engaged in simple vandalism should be beyond the jurisdiction of WP:AIV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What about clear cut cases, where the user is still not a vandal? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha! You can use {{userlinks}}(HighInBC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), it has the same links as {{vandal}}, with a more neutral name. I will add it as an acceptable tag for my bot(later). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's within the boundaries set forth by the bot approval, and for absolutely 115% certain clearcut cases, sure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You do realize my bot cannot tell how certainly clearcut the case is right? <grin>HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it's up to the admins to block or remove non-clearcut cases from the page. :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that reporting offensive Usernames should remain with WP: AIV, after all, only Administrators can block. All we need to do is create a new template for Usernames to be reported here. The User I reported wasn't a vandal, it just had an offensive Username. The Administrators had to know about it, for I can't block the user myself. Acalamari 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is a good venue for anything in need of a block that requires only a brief examination. WP:AN/I gets too plugged up with small matters that are resolved instantly, and WP:RFCN is for less obvious cases. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done[20], you can now use {{userlinks}}. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps AIV should be renamed "Simple block requests". That's what this page is used for, so it might as well be its name. --Tango 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but I prefer AIV. AIV ensures that Users know that this page is for cases that require Administrator intervention against vandalism. "Simple block requests" would make some Users think can anyone could give out blocks. Acalamari 21:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Ya, that name would likely encourage more improper reports. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, because "simple" could cover too many topics, such as a Talk Page discussion. Somebody may disagree with another User, or Users, and request a block on the Users they disagree with (this is only an example, but it could happen). No one wants that to happen, and if it did, loads of respectable Users would be blocked for silly reasons. Acalamari 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. AIV is a perfectly fine name. If you must use the other name, create it as a redirect. alphachimp 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV is perfect. Acalamari 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say about this is, why? {{vandal}} is too offensive for a {{username}} block now? If the username is offensive, then it gets blocked, and this is the place to put it. Telling people to use a new template won't do much for the people that use automated tools like ARV, VP and others (plug AIV'er). Asking people to use a new template because someone finds {{vandal}} offensive is introducing bureaucratic for the sake of bureaucratic. This is Administrator intervention against vandalism, which de facto includes username blocks. This is "move the main page because it's in mainspace" all over again. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is telling anyone to use another template. This is only another choice for those who wish to. This is an increase in functionality for my bot, not a new policy or even suggested behaviour. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible bot feature

I got a suggestion that the bot automatically remove duplicate entries. I thought about this and realized this would result in potentially new information being removed. So I thought duplicate entries could be converted into a comment of the first entry. So: 

* {{Vandal|someguy}} blah blah blah... ~~~~
* {{Vandal|someohterguy}} bleh bleh bleh... ~~~~
* {{Vandal|someguy}} Derpde derp de derp!... ~~~~

would turn into:

* {{Vandal|someguy}} blah blah blah... ~~~~
*: Derpde derp de derp!... ~~~~ <small>(duplicate report)</small>
* {{Vandal|someohterguy}} bleh bleh bleh... ~~~~

Any thoughts/opinions/suggestions? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good. --Deskana (request backup) 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks really good to me. I've accidentally reported a user a second time (the IP numbers are difficult to scan when there's a backlog), so this would certainly help clean it up. -- Satori Son 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. But instead of **, please use the correct *: :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. It shouldn't probably point out that the comment is copied from another report, otherwise it will be confusing. "Moved from duplicate report: Derpde derp dep derp!..." maybe.--Tango 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Something like that? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That's good. I would have put it at the beginning, rather than the end, but I think that's just personal preference. Either works. --Tango 11:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, it should streamline AIV even more. Dar-Ape 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that my suggestion has been sufficiently markedly addressed, I hence give said implementation my rubber stamp of approval. --210physicq (c) 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I like this too. Duplicate reports clutter the page. delldot | talk 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it is on my list of things to do, will take it on when I have a few hours free. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help me with this!

I've reported several vandals here, but not one has been blocked. (e.g., here, here, here, and here) In some cases it has been quite obvious that the user is a vandal. In one instance, the user had vandalized six times after his most recent warning, all within 25 minutes after the warning. This IP had ten warnings on his talk page, five of which were "final". But the user was not blocked because he had not vandalized within the past nine hours. What if the user had to go to work? What if the user went to bed? He'll just come back and vandalize again, and we are not sending a good message by adding repeated "final" warnings and not following through.

Please help me. What should I do? Where do I report these people? --Think Fast 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here for obvious cases. WP:ANI for more complicated cases.
Hasn't edited for a few days, but has a history of vanishing for a few weeks, then returning to vandalise. Few if any useful edits. Not obviously shared. Has been blocked for 1 week before. Probably worth a two week block?
Hasn't edited for a few days, but has a history of vanishing for a few weeks, then returning to vandalise. Few if any useful edits. Not obviously shared. Has been blocked briefly before. Probably worth a one or two week block?
Hasn't edited since your warning. Only 5 edits in all. So block not appropriate.
Currently serving a 3 month block. So nothing to do here. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ben Aveling pretty much covered it, but I'd like to add that it is a timing issue with the report. The guideline is that you need to report them "soon" after they vandalize, generally meaning sometime within the last hour. It's not just when they vandalize past the last warning, but how long ago was it. If it has been hours since the last edit, admins will often delete the report as the assumption is that the vandal has stopped. Not always though. There are some cases were the IP will be blocked no matter what the time, but those are special cases like spambots. -- Gogo Dodo 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll echo Ben and Gogo. And I also want to add that we generally assume that an account is shared unless the IP is editing the same articles day after day. Shared means that many people (sometimes thousands) share an IP. So a user vandalizing at 2 pm and one at 3 pm on the same day are often different people. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In these cases there don't seem to be many useful edits, if any. That suggests not shared IPs. And some slightly nasty edits from 2 of these IPs. [21] [22] [23]. We could run it past WP:ANI, but it's not like either of them are established contributors. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to repeat Woohookitty: always assume an IP address is shared unless you have a specific reason to assume otherwise. The most likely reason is that they always vandalise the same, or related pages, or they always do the same thing to those pages (and something more distinctive than just blanking). Just because there are no useful edits doesn't mean it's not shared, it just means it's not shared with anyone that has edited wikipedia in the past - they may well edit in the future, and blocking the address would stop them. Blocks are not used to punish, but to prevent. If you don't have good reason to believe they will vandalise in the next 24 hours, then a 24 hour block is pointless (same applies to blocks of other lengths, although IP addresses should only be blocked for more than a couple of days in exceptional circumstances (eg. schools), or if the IP addresses is definitely not shared.) --Tango 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. They have been helpful. But if anyone has anything else to add, go ahead!  :) --Think Fast 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalproof and autoreporting

Hi. I left a note on a user's talk page asking her please to report IPvandals using {{IPVandal|xx.xx.xx.xx}} and logged-in user vandals with {{vandal|Username}}. (BTW, the commented instructions for that at the top of the main AIV page seem to be incomplete now.) The user told me that she uses vandalproof, which does the reporting automatically. But it reports IP users with the vandal template. We are curious whether it matters to admins. If so, what's the best course of action? I suppose one could just stop by AIV and minor edit the entries, but a revision to vandalproof sounds as if it might be a better option. Thanks for your input. MKoltnow 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the main thing it affects is the AIV bot that incorrectly reports remaining items in the list, divided by IPs and users, because it uses the IPVandal and vandal templates to identify the users in the list. In addition, IPVandal has useful links (such as WHOIS). Therefore, I think it would be much better if you could incorporate both templates in the reporting. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I will continue to do so, and copy this text in for the other user on my talkpage. MKoltnow 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism after returning from a block

Please could it be clarified what is the general consensus regarding reporting vandals to AIV if they have returned from a block, but not been issued with another warning since that time. Naturally the user page will show at least one final warning prior to the block; is another 'final' waning necessary before they are reported again? Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 12:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends how soon after the block expires they come back. If it is within a day for a short block, or a few days for a longer one, then just report them straight away. Otherwise, go through the usual steps (although, you can probably start with {{bv}}). --Tango 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It also depends on the nature of the IP. If it's a dynamic IP from an ISP, I tend to start anew (except that, depending on the nature of the IP, I might now use bv or test2 instead of test1). If it's a school IP with a long history of vandalism, I tend to be a lot less patient, and either issue an immediate bv or block them for a long time (thank goodness for the AO flag!). I think in the majority of cases, I would issue a bv and wait for more vandalism. I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to IP addresses for fear of hitting a bystander, but if once I'm reasonably certain the vandal is active and the IP address has a long history of vandalism, I tend to hit for longer, due to the AO flag. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gripe: People are issuing final warnings and reporting them here at the same time

Argh... I'm sure you guys see it all the time, but I just removed six vandals in a row, all of whom either had warnings issued at the same time as they were reported here (ie, they hadn't edited since the last warning) or didn't have a warning at all. Is it now the habit of people to issue final warnings and report them to AIV without first checking to see if they vandalised first? --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I removed half a dozen where the "vandal" had been issued just a final warning (often only after one edit) and then reported. This must stop. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I've also noticed a lack of knowledge about the new user templates. And I have a minor related gripe. When I patrol recent changes, I revert the vandalism, then I go to the (ab)user's talk page to leave an appropriate note. I am somewhat annoyed to find someone has already left a note--and not necessarily the one I would have chosen. I don't want to step on another editor's toes, but I find it a bit rude. I typically like to use progressive warnings, as this thread suggests. I have been amazed at the number of times even a blatant vandal responds to uw-vandalism3 or something before the need to send it to AIV. So many editors assume bad faith even before I would, and I'm incredibly cynical! I think a lot of vandals have no idea that their edits are trackable, so they think they can vandalise at will. Once they find out that a) someone is watching, and b) their changes have already been reverted, I think a lot of them just feel it's not worth the trouble. Others continue and end up blocked. I better get off my soapbox now, my legs are getting sore. MKoltnow 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Vandalproof can revert & leave a message with one click. Nothing will happen to the article if the edit has already been reverted, but the message will get left anyway. So, if the timing's awkward, VP users can be responsible for 'rude' warnings before yours, or additional warnings after yours. I try to remove any 'extras' that I post, but I'm sure some get left. Mr Stephen 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, there are many who simply revert vandalism without giving a warning. I've occasionally given warnings for reverts made by others, when it looked like they didn't bother - as has been mentioned here, "somebody's watching you" often has salutory effect. Raymond Arritt 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I normally try to use the "bump 'em up" strategy myself. Some problems as listed below.

  1. Bots rarely follow the scheme or check existing warning that I saw. When the do number their warnings, those numbers have little to do with our numbers.
  2. Some users write warnings by hand and skip the numbers.
  3. Sometimes, especially with suspected socks/open proxies, I have to start out at a higher number. This might be {{uw-vandalism4im}} for a vandal that has been really persistent.
  4. The user I most recently listed at WP:AIV, who was blocked btw, was very insulting to me and others. He had just left a personal attack on my talk page. I deleted it and then issued a final warning. In just a few minutes, the personal attack was back. So that was when I listed the user (who signed in) at WP:AIV. Within a few minutes, the user was blocked.

Will (Talk - contribs) 06:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well - being extraodrinarily frustrated by the new templates - where is a good explanation apart from the new table (which is hard to read) ?SatuSuro 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If the problem with users reporting on AIV and issuing a final warning at the same time is that VandalProof and other tools allow it, perhaps VandalProof should disable issuing a bv/test3/test4 with reporting to AIV simultaneously. It wastes our time to check and remove warnings when the IP hadn't yet vandalised past a bv/test3/test4. Maybe VandalProof should have a big flashing window saying Hey, did you first check to see if the user vandalised AFTER you sent your final warning? These "easy-to-use" tools might save the vandal reporter some valuable seconds, but it sure wastes a lot of the janitors' times... --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Or maybe we need a tool (call it "VandalProofProof") that allows us to send a message to the reporting user when we remove a report because the vandal hasn't vandalised past a bv/test3/test4. Either way, I guess since there are enough admins on AIV that I can afford to take a bit of extra time to manually start educating some of our hard-working AIV reporters. It's not their fault that VandalProof has that option. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, VP's "revert & send warning mesage" and "report to AIV" are different operations. There's nothing to stop you giving a bv/t3/t4 and then reporting to AIV straight away, but anyone with a VP pass should be experienced enough to not do that, and not need an "are you sure" prompt. A VP Abuse page exists to report problem VP users. Mr Stephen 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice to have a nice easy template you could post on users page saying please dont list on AIV unless they vandals have been warned and vandalised again.... (see above for more) AndrewRT(Talk) 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's not VandalProof, then it's the reporter. Maybe we need an education campaign or something to make sure these folks done send a final warning then go to AIV straightaway. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the people reporting to AIV are doing a much needed, tedious and often thankless task. Most of the ideas I've had to try and improve reporting quality are either too much work for admins to bother with, or are likely to stop people bothering to report vandals at all. --Tango 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

precisely. I frequently come on AIV with a 8-10 IP backlog. It's somewhat ridiculous to run through the list and manually inspect whether each and every IP has been properly warned. I assume good faith on the part of the vandal fighters. Let's cut them some slack. They're maintaining Wikipedia one edit at a time. alphachimp 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean by that that you block reported vandals on the word of the reporter only and without checking for yourself? If so, you really need to stop doing that... Assume good faith, certainly, but don't assume they're infallible. --Tango 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do, after looking at their contributions. I can see whether or not they have been warned when I post the block message on their page. The block can then be adjusted or removed if sufficient warnings are not present. If someone is in the process of vandalizing wikipedia, it doesn't make sense to first spend time investigating whether procedural steps have been followed. alphachimp 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely you have to load the talk page in order to edit it, so why not load it and check for warnings before you block, and then add the block notice? It takes a few seconds longer to actually read the page and saves you incorrectly blocking and having to unblock, which takes much longer. You really shouldn't be blocking people that haven't been warned. Also, if you're not reading the talk page first, you won't know if the IP is a school, for example, which would require a different kind of block. You'll also have no idea how long to block for. You really need to read the talk page in order to have any idea what actions needs to be taken. --Tango 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
School blocks can be tweaked after reading the talk page. It's usually fairly obvious whether or not a user has been warned or not. When there is some doubt (such as no recent vandalism), I don't hesitate to check their talk page. Schools don't receive a separate type of block. I block every IP as anon-only with account creation blocked. As for block length: it's almost always obvious from the bottom of Special:BlockIP. I'm not arguing against the value of reading a talk page. I'm just saying that at peak times with trusted vandal fighters, the step can be postponed. alphachimp 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith on the part of vandal fighters, and I'm not belittling their work. That's why I'm not admonishing them. Assuming good faith also means assuming that if you tell them about the right course of action, they will do it. I let a few people know, quite nicely (I think), that I removed reports because the IP hadn't edited after the final warning. Hopefully armed with this information, they will issue a final warning and not immediately report it to AIV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I may be one of those who listed a "final warning" on a user talk page, and then listed the IP at AIV. The IP I noticed is this: 168.8.148.20. The AIV request was rejected since the IP had not vandalized within 12 hours (or 20 hours; I cannot remember). Perhaps a quick clarification of the time frame you expect for now in "the vandal is active now" guideline to editors would help. To me, the number of block warnings received by this IP, the pattern that when a block expires, the vandalism continues, and the fact that the IP vandalized within the last 24 hours feels like "now" to me. Please advise where this should have been reported so it would receive proper attention. It's not checkuser, since we apparently already know "who" it is (University System of Georgia). Must this be an AN/I request? Keesiewonder talk 10:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the danger with including such extra information are fears of m:instruction creep. Personally, I'm in favour of clarity, but I might be in the minority. However, the problem with being specific is that it really depends on the situation and nature of the IP address (is it static, dynamic, a school, government, AOL, do they use XFF, etc.). --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that we add more parameters to anything. I would like to know where to properly report something like the IP I noticed. Clearly, according to the admin who took a look at it, it did not meet AIV. Where should/could the IP issue I noticed receive attention? Keesiewonder talk 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice your response. I think the best place for extra investigation is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This is a high volume page, but it often gets you good response from several admins, depending on the nature of your request. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who tells the vandal that he has been blocked and why

I have noticed that occasionally a vandal is blocked without any message telling him that he has been blocked. More often, he is told, but the specific act of vandalism (after the fourth warning) which justified the block is not described. In a few instances, I have said something like "I am requesting that you be blocked for vandalizing Newton's laws of motion on 5 February 2008." before reporting him. However, I do not like to do this because if the administrator does not actually block him it would undermine confidence in the system, while the administrator might feel that I am forcing his hand for the same reason. JRSpriggs 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recommend that you tell the vandal you are going to report him for two reasons: The first is the reason you state. And the second is that it could be read as a taunt and might prompt them vandalize even more before they get blocked. I recommend issuing the final warning and if the vandal keeps going, just report him to AIV without leaving another note. Let the blocking admin notify the vandal that he has been blocked. Most of the time an admin will notify the vandal of the block, but sometimes admins won't. I won't if I know that the vandal is unlikely to read it or I know that the vandal doesn't care. For example, I won't notify spambots that they're blocked because I know that there isn't a person reading the warnings. -- Gogo Dodo 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it helps to notify the IP that they're blocked not just for the people behind the IP, but for other Wikipedians who check the IP talk page before issuing another warning or block. Seeing a fairly recent block notice usually means I'll issue a bv rather than a test1. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Generally I leave a message notifying of the block, and I try to include the duration of the block. I agree this is helpful to vandalism moppers, both regular and sysop, and a final courtesy to the vandal (perhaps a demonstration of class will rub off on one of them someday).
The blocking policy states, "Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments." Although this is from an official policy page, that line is worded in such a way that I would consider it a guideline, i.e. not mandatory, at the blocking admin's discretion. --Ginkgo100talk 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the length of the block. Knowing exactly how long a block is for would be quite useful for the semi-casual vandal to simply come back and vandalise right after the block expires. OTOH, for the rest of us, it's quite easy to see how long a blockw as for, including the block logs and the "block user" page. This is, by no means, a certain thing, as it's quite common to post block durations. I'm just one of the people who happens to not do that, for my own personal reasons. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought it wasn't a good idea to tell them "I'm going to report you" because of WP:BEANS. It would encourage them to vandalise more as Gogo Dodo said. James086Talk 12:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the "I'm going to report you". That might be an idle threat (ie, if they don't get blocked, the vandal gets more encouraged), and it might also encourage them to vandalise more as mentioned above. -Deathphoenix ʕ 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to use the "Thanks for experimenting" message on their Talk page, followed by something more specific alluding to my suspicion of vandalism, always staying polite. It is for Admins to practice 'tough prose' I think! Any warning's a warning, after all. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And another thing

I reported 216.120.198.130, who was in the middle of a spree of vandalism. This user had the following template at the top of their talk page

"This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning."

I reported this IP accordngly to AIV without adding another warning. the request was turned down with the reasoning that "No vandalism since last warning" - I assume another level 4 was needed after all in this situation - or is this incorrect? Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what that template is intended for. As far as I know, IP addresses always get at least one warning before being blocked (unless they've just come off a block), so the template is incorrect... --Tango 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I really don't like that template. I've been thinking of removing it outright from IP talk pages because it gives vandal reporters the wrong impression (and might be the reason for the whole slate of immediate AIV reports I've been seeing lately). It was likely created back when we didn't really have a way of dealing with IPs with a long history of vandalism. Now that we have the AO-only flag, there's no real need for a template advocating a block without warning. For example, I simply AO-block school IPs for a very long time if they have a long history of vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put the template up for deletion. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 31. Thanks! --Tango 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this template substed on User talk:205.222.248.112, and unsubsted it and the one above to avoid a lot of messy template code. So if you do get it deleted, you'll have to substed instances to remove. --NE2 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism educational template?

I can't find it anymore, but didn't we used to have a user-page template to give a friendly education to users/editors on the warning/block process? (For use when we notice that someone has reverted vandalism but not warned the vandal.) - RJASE1 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We block them with {{Schoolblock}}, which transcludes onto the block message. On their talk page, we use {{Sharedipedu}} alphachimp 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean something along the lines of "Hi, thank you for cleaning up vandalism on (article). Did you know about our process for issuing warnings to vandals? This will help to prevent vandalism in the future" or some such message. - RJASE1 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
How would we benefit from teaching vandals about the process for issuing them warnings? alphachimp 15:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the message would be for someone fighting vandals who is not doing all the steps. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - for someone who is cleaning up vandalism but not warning vandals. - RJASE1 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Clarification - I know we used to have a template like this but I can't find it anywhere now...recently I have seen a lot of well-meaning amateur cleaners edit-warring with vandals on an article, but the vandal doesn't get warned (probably because the good guy doesn't know how). On a related note, I know we also used to have a similar template for someone who only partially cleans up an article (i.e. a vandal hits a page four times in succession and the cleaner only undoes the last act of vandalism while leaving the first three.) - RJASE1 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot edit summary change

Hello, per User_talk:HBC_AIV_helperbot#Edit_summary_suggestion, I am bringing a suggestion here to seek consensus. Basically it would be changing the bot's edit summary from:

  • rm 167.206.26.2 (blocked 6 months by BradBeattie (AO ACB)). 2 IPs & 1 user left.

to

  • 2 IPs & 1 user left. rm 167.206.26.2 (blocked 6 months by BradBeattie (AO ACB)).

This request is due to the fact that certain assist tools show only the beginning of the edit summary and that it is preferred that it show the remaining report information than the action the bot took.

I am posting here to gauge if this really is the consensus. If so, I can implement this immediately. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No objection here. This may be something that purely reflects my own preferences (in which case, ignore) but, if the list is empty, could the bot say so louder? ie
  • EMPTY • rm 167.206.26.2 (blocked 6 months by BradBeattie (AO ACB)).
There's a lot of information in one short summary; something making it easier to scan would help me! 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to shortening List empty. to Empty., but I try not to program my bots to yell. I don't think all caps really makes things more visible. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a good edit summary. Putting the list size info at the beginning has the advantages of being visible even when the edit summary is truncated and making it easy to scan with human eyes because it's at a fairly consistent spot in the history. Redvers's allcaps suggestion is a good one, I tend to put "LIST EMPTY" or "NOT EMPTY" in allcaps when I manually edit AIV anyways. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Implemented, sans the capslock. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Backup bot

I am working on making the bot work well with another instance of itself. The idea being is that the bot can run in 2 or more locations at the same time, all sharing the load. Should one fail, like mine did last night do to a power cord being unplugged, the other(s) will continue.

I am testing this right now using 2 computers in my room, edits whose summary is preceded with a B: are done by the backup instance. Let me know if anything goes wrong. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot redundancy is now in effect, thank you User:Extranet for running User:HBC AIV helperbot2. We are working on User:HBC AIV helperbot3 as I speak, outages of the bot should be a thing of the past now. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You could probably run the bot on the toolserver, that would increase the uptime to almost 100%. --Tango 11:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea, not sure how that works though, will I have access to the script to update and fix it as needed? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You just have to get an account on the toolserver (can't remember how you do that, but it should be easy enough), and it comes with webspace to put your bot in. You have complete control over that webspace. --Tango 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Visit m:Toolserver --pgk 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

InvalidAIV Template

As discussed previously here, I've created a template that can be used to educate users who make invalid reports here. Its at {{InvalidAIV}}. Please feel free to reword if you can improve and I hope you find it useful. I've also added it in to the header. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Level 3 and bv warnings are also fine, since they also menion the possibility of a block. Perhaps use "final warning" and give examples of a final warning in the template (anything that mentions the possibility of a block could be construed as a "final warning"). I'll change the wording to read "final warning". --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Good show, most useful. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I very much disagree and would be in favor of using this template extremely sparingly, if not deleting it outright. It's similar to the reason that the Personal Attack Noticeboard had problems with just tagging a {{npa}}, as such a template would be more likely to inflame passions than anything. If you want to make people who report vandalism - who are often currently pissed off at having an article they watch vandalized - feel like they get in trouble for it since they get a stern warning as a result, this is the way to do it. It's patronizing and aggravating. I'm not saying that submitters of invalid reports shouldn't be told why a reported user couldn't be blocked, but that can be done in a personal message, not a warning template. I forget where it is, but there's an essay/guideline somewhere in the WP namespace explicitly suggesting that established users not have templates thrown at them, in general. SnowFire 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting reaction. Personally I am someone who reports here every now and then when I find vandalism on my watch pages - neither an admin nor a vandal patroller or whatever you call it. Most of the time, it is very hard to find out what happended to your report without wading through the huge history. I created the template because I personally would like feedback - including thank you where people have used the template correctly, and a nudge where they haven't. You're absolutely right that it should be done in a way that is extremely gentle and encourages people to continue reporting to AIV - hence why it starts with the words "Thank you". I'll try and reword the template to make sure the message is a positive one overall. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Well, as I note below, if this template makes interaction with invalid report submitters more common, then great. It just strikes me that the current template is, if anything, over-complete. To put things another way: people can be rankled when told things that (they think) they already know. This template works fine for a first-time submitter perhaps to explain the whole process; however, I don't think it works when the submitter knows the process- or at least part of the process- and the problem was elsewhere. For example, say there's an IP address that vandalized a lot 6 months ago, got the final warning sticker, then went silent. Then it makes a new piece of minor vandalism, and someone submits it to AIV due to the 6-month old final warning template already being there. In this case, the admin may be within their rights to not block and simply add another warning template; if that is done, the use of InvalidAIV is likely to rankle. A short, tailored message explaining the thought process would be far better. To put things another way, you could divide invalid AIV reports into two categories: "user knows the rules but is expecting an exception / misunderstands the facts of the case" and "user does not know the rules." The template may be appropriate for the latter case (generally for non-odious vandalism), but it is not appropriate for the former case. SnowFire 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
When a user posts to AIV, and it gets ignored that is not helpful the them. I don't think it is to stern at all, it simply explains how to get your report recognized. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course. And in fairness, I know that admins can be stressed and busy, so if the choice is "leave a template" or "leave nothing at all," then the template is better. But I maintain that even a single short sentence may be better than the template, if the admin is up for it. SnowFire 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to emphasise this point. I've made probably a dozen reports here and I have never had any feedback from any admins and never found out what happened to the report - if the user was blocked or the report rejected for whatever reason. It's not about admins being busy, feedback is something that simply never happens - and partly because it isn't proceduralised via templates and (eventually I hope) bots. It's like a big black hole that reports disappear into never to be seen again.... AndrewRT(Talk) 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried just keeping an eye on the history page? The edit summaries show all the blocks (reported by the helperbot) and any rejections are explained by the admins. If you want feedback, that's the place to look for it. Given the extremely high turnover rate of this page, I'd advise against anything that bogs down the admins. AIV is for stopping acute vandalism, not for user education. --Plek 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A comment from a user who is new to this: I've studied the {{InvalidAIV}} and I don't think I'd be as discouraged by it as I was by the summary removal of a listing because I hadn't posted warnings first. — Athænara ✉ 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to have a template or templates, it/they should be informative -- what can the reporter of vandalism do which he/she has not done? For example, if the vandalism is stale, then you should point him to who can deal with long-term vandalism. If the vandal has already been adequately warned for the offense, then suggest the reporter check whether a warning has already been given. etcetera. JRSpriggs 09:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I corrected some spelling errors and made some wording changes to note how important vandal-fighting is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: Where, exactly, is the guideline that Administrators shouldn't block until a "final warning" is received? I was going to edit the InvalidAIV template myself, but when I checked the claimed cite for that fact, it wasn't there. Neither Wikipedia:Vandalism nor Wikipedia:Blocking policy mention it. I mean, yes, it's mentioned on the template on top of this page and at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, but those aren't policy pages.

Speaking of the header template on top of this page, I see that it has changed. While I completely agree with Theresa Knott that instruction creep should be avoided, and I also agree that it's a good idea to add a general clause like "unusual circumstances" for blocking sans warnings, it might not be bad to provide at least one example for just how unusual the circumstances are, like was done before (vandalbots, etc.). SnowFire 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, one other thing. The InvalidAIV template is still in the "User Warnings" category. I don't know if there's a way around that, but that's... not a fortuitous name, since these messages should not be "warnings." SnowFire 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Snowfire, your right... it's not a policy par-say, but it is a procedure developed to help implement WP:AGF and WP:BITE in the vandal-fighting efforts. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there is a link to the template thats being used in the next section. It's at (this page's full name)/header. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. It just read slightly odd before saying "as per WP:VAND" when it wasn't actually there. ;-) I certainly agree that as a rule of thumb, it's useful. SnowFire 06:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ummm you have a point there. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

updated header

Hay, I updated the header with a note about the lack of responses to reports. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV Helperbots

I would endorse a update to the HBC AIV helperbot link as there are now three of the same bot running together in different locations in the world. I would suggest the following edit on the header:

  • Update: # One of the HBC AIV helperbots will remove blocked users from the list.

Its just an idea/suggestion, if you want to keep it that way, I don't really see a problem. Thanks, Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 07:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Vandal Correction

I have observed that many people report vandals but then fail to correct the vandalism. Because of this many vandals are blocked but continue to have their misinformation displayed on wikipedia.Cylonhunter 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm when I look at a vandal's contributions I'll usually rollback any recent edits with (Top). It doesn't really seem to be a major issue tho... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Me too. It's annoying to have to stop and revert vandalism after blocking, but it isn't difficult. --Tango 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly and yet there are some who forget.Cylonhunter 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of admins

Why has there been no admin action on this in over 30 minutes? 170.xxx is a repeat of the main page FA and I've left several notices here and on his talk page. Rlevse 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because we are volunteers and not paid employees. :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Time since final warning

Jewinabox (Contribs, talk) received a final warning on 1st of February. Today was his 1st vandalism since then (my userpage, a couple of hours ago.) If it was an anonymous ip address, I've been told that if the final warning was more than 12 hours ago, to issue a further warning. How much time is ppropriate for a registered user? Should I report it or issue another warning? - Belovedfreak 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a differences between anon and registered users. If a registered user shows a consistent patern of vandalism. Report them and leave a note on the WP:AIV entry that it may be a vandal only account. these accounts are often indef blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
In this case, however, I'd say the username alone fully justifies reporting the user. I've blocked indef. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Belovedfreak 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

I should like to regretfully report vandalism by 130.194.13.106.The anonymous user had been warned several times-appears this is the address for Monash University.Thanks(Vr 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

75.36.9.79

This is just one example of the IP addresses currently vandalizing Animal Face-Off. It seems to be the same person, but because the address changes constantly, he's difficult to keep track. I've tried to report him here but my report was just deleted, as his IP address had already changed. Dora Nichov 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Lucas Till

Found someone named "Sparklybubbles" had vandalized the Lucas Till page with homo-phobic crap, disturbing because Till is a minor. Reverted the page, but how can I report this person so he is put on notice? (just a suggestion - reporting this needs to be a far simplier procedure for us amateur, casual editors. I gave up trying to figure out what to do on the main article page here). RoyBatty42 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, add this under "User-reported":

* {{vandal|Sparklybubbles}} — Hateful and slandering attacks on a minor's biography ~~~~

When you want to report another user, change the text between the "|" and "}}" to the username and change the explanation to whatever s/he's doing. 68.39.174.238 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have blocked this user indefinitely. --Ginkgo100talk 03:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge duplicates bot function

The bot will now merge duplicate reports into one[24], by making subsequent reports a comment of the first. It should preserve the comments and signature/timestamp of the original report. If it screws up or causes a problem of some sort, disable it in the parameter string. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now that's cool. I wish I could program like that... Cheers, PTO 13:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be an idea if it says in the text that it has done that. For example says behind the merged report that it is a duplicate warning that was merged by the bot. It seems a bit strange when I have commented under a report the exact same as stated in the first report. Rettetast 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Valid point Rettetast, I will add that to the bot. It will say "(moved by bot)" after the end of the comment(after the sig). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Done[25][26]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice. Rettetast 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot is a little big bugged (not urgent)

Take a look at this. It changed the comment as well as the tag. It's not urgent as it's only changing a comment. --Deskana (request backup) 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a patch for this issue that I'll get into the next revision of the bot, once I clear a couple of other questions up with HighInBC. —Krellis 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This fix has now been deployed in the live versions of the helperbot, so you shouldn't see this extra change again. Please let us know if you do see it, or any other problems with the bots. —Krellis 18:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of consistency in editors' detection and reaction to vandalism

As a converse problem to that pointed out in section 6 (above), I have seen many incidents where (a) the proper warning templates have not been used, (b) where multiple acts of vandalism have resuloted in just one warning being issued, which compounds, (c) a lack of reporting on the page here when a final warning stage has been passed. Could something be done to advertise and make more clear the recommended actions that need to be taken when vandalism is detected?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the header on this project page and the information at WP:VAN make it pretty clear what should be done. The problem is that inexperienced users often make mistakes. --Ginkgo100talk 01:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm one of those who first tried reverting vandalism myself, then realised I might be obscuring the evidence as seen by anti-vandal bots, then began the WP:AIV learning curve—how to warn vandals, how to post here with a useful edit summary, what templates to use, etc. It is a learning process. Policy and procedure won't ever be satisfactory substitutes for the learning process. — Athænara ✉ 20:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New bot function - AutoMark

I have added a new function HBC AIV helper bot. It looks up each IP to see if it matches a list of special IP patterns. I have taken the patterns shown to admins on the block page as a starting point. See User:HBC AIV helperbot/Special IPs, my bot reads this list every 10 minutes. Feel free to add/suggest additions to this list. When the bot sees that an IP matches a pattern on this list it will post a comment like this[27].

Please feel free to make comments/suggestions. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. I was watching you test it and it looks like a great idea. Kafziel Talk 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Was the bot "malfunction" your test? I was a bit confused why that was occurring because the IPs did not belong on your Special IP list. Nishkid64 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it was actually a bug, which has now been fixed. A regular expression got too greedy for its own good when some colons got into the descriptions of the blocks, and it mucked everything up. —Krellis 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Greedy greedy regular expressions! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the best feature I ever implemented was the individual on/off switches for the different features. It let me turn off the AutoMark function and still have the bot perform it's other jobs. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem

Can anyone help me? The following user/s keep vandalising the articles Phil Mitchell, Ben Mitchell (EastEnders) and Sonia Fowler. However, I report them, they get blocked, and just create another account. Is there any way that they can be banned from creating new accounts?

Here are all the known incarnations of this user:

-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thevandal is indefblocked... but I don't see that Lou22 has done anything worth blocking over... he blanked his own talkpage, but that's not really vandalism. Other then that I see what looks like a good-faith upload of an image and related edits. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And this edit. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If the pages continue to receive a lot of vandalism from multiple IPs, you can request semi-protection at WP:RFP. At this point it doesn't look severe enough to warrant that. --Ginkgo100talk 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the user is being allowed to persistently create new accounts, and is now (it seems) vandalising because of a vendetta against me (See this edit summary). -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I indef blocked that user, but if this is an ongoing problem it would be best to report it at WP:ANI. --Ginkgo100talk 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I reported it here. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where to get help on this one

Hi all, there is something of an edit war going on in the Bloodless Bullfighting article between User:Pebs96 and User:Fethers. Fethers just blanked and redirected the entire page. Pebs96 wants help. I reverted to the last complete version prior to the last round of edit warring. The article itself has a lot of POV and style problems, but also a very dedicated and passionate editor working on it. I am not an admin, I do not want to be dragged into this. But I don't know who can go over there and knock heads together. So if this can direct an admin to look into it, or if you can suggest some appropriate things I can do to help, let me know. Montanabw 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI would be appropriate here. --210physicq (c) 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up that you were going to AIAV over this instead of just dropping me a line on my talk page. I don't see anywhere that Pebs96 (AKA Webmistress Dive) has asked for help; I'm pretty surprised, because that article started as an opportunity for her to promote her business. In addition, she started articles on a myriad of people whose promotion she is directly tied to. As an example, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) and the linked AfDs. Her first edits to User Talk pages were pointed statements regarding removing her self-promotion. Helpfully, she has also archived her previous warnings regarding such things. The sole, somewhat referenced portion of Bloodless bullfighting was the history section, which I merged to the extant section in Bullfighting and redirected at the original source per the GFDL. This is less an edit war than it is just long-necessary cleanup of a self-promotional, unreferenced article. fethers 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to suggest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (WP:COI/N) as well. — Athænara ✉ 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Athaenara. Posted it there. fethers 14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it's really exhausting reading Fethers go on and on about how this person seems to think that my purpose on Wikipedia is about "self-promotion". Just an FYI, my business is in graphics and web design.... which I don't see how it is related to Bloodless Bullfighting. I just happen to be "passionate" about the art of bloodless bullfighting. Secondly, this "myriad" of people Fethers talk about... who are they? Bullfighters? These are very well known Rejoneadores/Cavaleiros (mounted bullfighters) and they have fought in California, which is tied into the the art of bloodless bullfights in California. Thirdly, I am an "amateur" on Wikipedia and with that, I noticed that people have archived their long drawn out pages.... which is very legitimate to do. Archiving text does not equate to hiding stuff. Archiving is simply putting away old stuff and it also allows a person to read current updates. All I did was put aside the clutter and created a link to where anyone can read it easily. And why would Fethers be so concerned with me "archiving" my stuff, when Fethers has completely removed all dialogue from last year and noted to just view history. That in itself is hiding something...>>see this>>>(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fethers&diff=next&oldid=87629130) And yes, Fethers hid the part where he told me to "stuff it". Around December 20th, 2006, Fethers had all of my images removed without giving me the "PROPER" notification. The images were never flagged, because if they were, it would have given me ample time to remedy any problems it may have had. The following also had some vindictive issues towards me because they only attacked the articles (relating to bloodless bullfighting) that I had contributed to at the time.
If a "fair" admin took a closer look at each of the person's edit, they only removed my links or anything that I had edited. For example, they noted that they were removing a "business link", which was mine, but left the other external links that were "obviously" more of a business link than mine could ever be. This Fethers person could easily be any one of those listed above, but just happens to have a new user name OR can be a friend of theirs. From the list, users Coudelariaagualva and 68.228.75.244 are one in the same.
One must really have the time and energy to review all of this madness as I have.
I created the bloodless bullfighting article and separated it from the bullfighting article because it deserved it's own file. California "bloodless bullfighting" involves the bulls NOT getting killed in or outside of the arena. Bullfighting (Spanish style) involves the killing of the bull. Even though the bull is not killed in Portugal, blood is still drawn to slow the bull down. And those two are the simplest reasons why the "bloodless bullfighting" article was created. It should not be mixed up with either NOR should it be redirected.
Also, since when did Wikipedia put a "timeframe" of when an article has to be completed? I don't remember seeing a deadline anywhere. Like I said, I am an amateur at all this and getting a "reference" on this particular article will take a while to do. So again.... PLEASE get this Fethers person off my back once and for all because for me to have to write this is so unnecessary and is also creating undue stress to my current disability. Fethers' actions are deemed as harrassment and causing nothing more than harm.
It is now 3:20am, it has taken me more than an hour to just write this. Is it justifiable? No!!! I should be sleeping or doing something more constructive.... but instead, I am having to defend myself and an article I created, all because this Fethers' person feels the need to cause misery.
On that note, I am signing off! Good night (or good morning)....--Webmistress Diva 11:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing section header

El_C wants to remove the section headers Bot-reported and User-reported. I think they should stay because it provides a direct link to the two sections. Without it there is no fast link to the bot report page, and all the reports are lumped together. I don't see the advantage to this change. He has made the suggestion that all bots bold their report, and that a separate link be made. I don't see how this does anything but make it more complicated for people trying to serve these reports to recognize and reach them. The current system makes it clear which is a bot and which is not, and when you click the edit button on the section heading you don't end up editing the whole page which is nice. Also, with the new idea all the bots need to be changed to bold their entries. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better in the header. It's much more out of the way, edit-wise, while the instructions remain clear for this seldom-used page. El_C 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by that, what about the edit buttons that take you straight to the page in question, the one's beside every section heading? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand how you have it now, you have 2 Alerts headings, both top level, and you can't tell which is which. Are you half done, or is that how you wanted it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this page worked fine as it was. -- Steel 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, either way, something needs to be fixed; now there are two "alerts" sections in a row, and when I click "edit" on the bottom one, it comes up blank even if there are reports in there. I'm a syntax idiot, so I don't want to screw anything up by messing with it. Kafziel Talk 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

El_C I think these changes should be reversed until there is a consensus to change it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. Just undo everything I did. That page is structured inefficiently, but I'm unable to fix it. El_C 15:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of structurally improving it. May I suggest testing it in a sandbox then asking what people think? Sorry to step on your idea, it just seemed to be more trouble than it was worth. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion here and on User talk:HighInBC and User talk:El C, as well as this edit to the header, I think I see the problem - it looks to me like a misunderstanding about what the sections mean. The edit to the header indicates to me that El_C thought/thinks that the "Bot-reported" section (/TB2) is for reporting bots that are vandalizing/misbehaving. In fact, /TB2 is for bots, which monitor for and detect vandalism (such as AntiVandalBot, when it's running, Shadowbot, and VoABot II), to report persistent vandals that they have detected, just as humans report on the main WP:AIV page. Or, I could be entirely wrong, and there's something else that El_C thinks is inefficient about the page's structure, in which case, I'd agree with HighInBC, I'm all for improving it, if we can get a clear idea about what's inefficient. —Krellis 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I never really understood why we need a separate section for bot-reported vandalism anyway. What difference does it make where the report comes from? I'm an idiot when it comes to technical stuff, so maybe I'm missing something, but why can't bots just put their reports in the same place as everyone else? Why do we need two sections? Kafziel Talk 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Bot reports need to be handled slightly differently, as the warnings the bots give don't follow quite the same structure as the warnings humans give. The basic idea is exactly the same, but it's useful to know what kind of warnings to look for. The bots could add the warnings to the main page with a distinctive message, of course.--Tango 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple IP Addresses

What is the policy for dealing with a page that is persistently vandalized from what appears to be a single user coming from a range of IP addresses? Leaving a warning on the talk page for the IP address would appear fruitless and even misleading, since that IP address may have been shared by any number of users who have done nothing wrong. Should I list every offending IP address (3 so far) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? I've been reverting the changes but I don't see an end to this edit war. What should my next step be? Duncow 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to request semi-protection for the article. You can do that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In general, it never hurts to leave appropriate warnings on the user talk pages - you might just get through to the real user, and at least that way you can say you've tried to warn them. —Krellis 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clear page

I just wanted to drop by and say thanks. The last few times I've posted vandals on this page, the list has been empty or nearly empty. Thanks for helping us vandal-fighters do our job. --Dweller 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. This time of day is usually very busy (I guess because school is in session or something) Dan D. Ric 14:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we're coming into the peak "poop" time of day. Football (soccer) usually gets some good hits around now from American kids who think it's naff. There's also a sprinkling of "butt" and "gay" comments on school articles. --Dweller 14:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon spammer

Just wanted to check whether or not it's appropiate for me to list 82.40.60.100. He / she keeps adding autograph sites, mostly to the Brandon Lee article, about 8 edits since January. I've given the full spam warnings and they've added another one. Just wanted to check if it's ok to list them because of the frequency and the fact it's an anon ip. Definitely think it's the same person though. Thanks Belovedfreak 13:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for spamming. Seeing as it appears to have been the same person over the past few days, they might be back, so I'll keep an eye on them. riana_dzasta 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Belovedfreak 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What does it take to get blocked?

Have a look at User talk:87.38.42.34. This user has a 99% edit record of vandalism going back 3 months. He has 4 AGF warnings, two 'this is your last warning' messages and finally another AGF warning.

So why has this user never been blocked despite my asking for this on AIV after his first 'last warning'?

Why can he continue to operate for three months?

How far does AGF stretch? Why is he being issued with multiple 'this is your last warning' messages, when this can only weaken the credibility of the message?

Does anyone believe here that Wikipedia is working better as a result of this kind of leniency? Curtains99 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The owner of an IP changes, so the last warning must be recent or you could be talking to a new person who has not read the warnings. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a fixed IP linked used by an Irish school. IP numbers are assigned to Irish schools by HEAnet. If a school or other owner of a fixed IP solely produces vandal edits, can it not be blocked? Curtains99 10:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Generally we soft-block schools that regularly vandalise, so signed in users can still edit from school (but they have to create new accounts at home). I'll take a look at this one and see if it should be soft-blocked. --Tango 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It was softblocked yesterday afternoon for 6 months. That should do the trick. --Tango 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I presume that softblocking means that registered users can still edit which makes sense. Curtains99 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that many of people who vandalize Wikipedia do so because they are playing a game with two objectives: (1) to see if they can vandalize articles without being detected and (2) to see what it take to get blocked. I imagine that this game offers special "bragging rights" for the vandal who can accumulate the most final warnings without being blocked.--orlady 00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Editors have less time to contribute to Wikipedia when so much effort is consumed with deleting 'Jimmy Jones is GAY!!!' messages and the like. It shouldn't take twenty such edits to receive a short block which is itself a very limited sanction. The work involved in adding the correct template is significant for most editors who are not using anti-vandal tools so most reverts are carried out without the appropriate warning messages being added. It would be nice if the edit screen had a tick box to indicate that an edit was a vandalism reversion. In that way, the system could add appropriate messages and autoblock users following an agreed number of vandalism edits. Unfair blocks could be challenged and inappropriate use of the vandalism flag would result in the reporting editor being blocked. Comments? Curtains99 12:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a pretty evident message here in the way that the system is heavily weighted towards the vandal. Because we contribute, our goodwill can be taken for granted. Our interests count for little. We are supposed to give freely of our time, tolerate the witless, the crass and the puerile, and even to clean up after them on the remote chance that someday one of them just might have something of value to contribute - which has a probability of the same order as that of seeing a flying pig. Every now and again, I make two mistakes: firstly that of caring about it, and secondly that of thinking that someone who might be able to do something might actually give a damn. I'm beginning to learn, though. After all: if Jimbo Wales doesn't care that Wikipedia has become a cretin's playground, why should anyone else? --Stephen Burnett 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The key piece of data that is missing here is whether a given IP address is dynamic or static. Static IP addresses (those that are permanently assigned to a given individual or organization) ought to be blocked much faster than they are today; we give them a lot of leeway because unless someone is willing to actually look up who the address belongs to (do a reverse DNS), we can't be certain they're not a dynamic IP address that do deserve a certain amount of leeway.
But the tide of vandalism is definitely getting worse and you're right; the people that run Wikipedia seem to think we all have an endless stomach for cleaning up puke. But it's not true.
Atlant 14:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
But some of the worst are those IP's which are static, which have been traced and which belong to schools. The kids know the "rules" as well as we do. They take it to the edge so they get a final warning and then back off, knowing that editors have to go through the whole cycle again. Nobody here is stupid, and it should be obvious to anyone with the most casual experience of child-rearing or education what the result is when they get a long string of "final warnings", none of which are acted upon. Unfortunately what we seem to have is a victory for dogma and ideology over basic common sense. --Stephen Burnett 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
For schools that are marked on the talk pages as schools, I try to apply a simple heuristic: If it's a sudden spate of vandalism from a school that has made some worthwhile contributions in the past, I issue a short block, often for as few as three hours, usually with the block reason of "Go back to class". But if the school has produced constant vandalism far out of proportion to their useful edits, or if the first few edits coming back from a block are obvious vandalism, I issue ever-longer blocks. Occasionally, at this point in the year, I'm even willing to block them until the end of the current term.
Atlant 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Vandalism is not getting worse at all in my experience. In fact it is now easier to deal with vandalism than it ever was. People generally choose to spend thier time dealing with vandalism. If you choose to do this then obviously you see a lot of vandalism. If you feel that dealing with vandalism is a waste of your time then the answer is obvious - simply stop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Taking that to its logical extent however, its a waste of time contributing too. I'm starting to get the message. --Stephen Burnett 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Contributing is much more fun than vandal fighting and much more satisfying. I would never say someone shouldn't contribute. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I must confess that I kind of got sucked into it. At first it was because they crapped on stuff I actually contributed. Then it was "hmmm, I wonder what else they've done"? But by definition, there is never any end to fighting vandals - partly because there are so many, but largely due to the way they are tolerated and even encouraged here. I definitely agree that contributing is more satisfying, and its high time I went back to it - but the very strong message from all this is that Wikipedia doesn't think enough of my efforts and those of people like me to put in place some basic protection on what we do. That is, to say the least, discouraging. --Stephen Burnett 15:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


I would add that if someone is the type of lenient admin that likes to give people a break and a 3rd, 4th, 5th chance. Then please stay away from AIV and let the more proactive admins handle the work. cheers. L0b0t 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Such admins do not exist. Admins are trying to do what is best for wikipedia, sometimes that means blocking an IP and sometimes that means not blocking one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's really not that hard to get someone blocked. It seems to me that the biggest problem, at least as far as AIV, is that vandal fighters aren't doing their job. Don't waste our time by reporting an IP that hasn't edited since the last warning, or that hasn't been warned in days. Stop posting "final warning" templates the first time a user makes a mistake. Abuse of the bv template and improper AIV reporting just leads to frustration for everybody. Do what you're supposed to do, issue the appropriate warnings (every time you revert vandalism), go through the proper steps, and vandals will get blocked. It's no more difficult now than it was when I started here. Kafziel Talk 14:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, fine - so the problem is that responsible editors aren't jumping through the right hoops, rather than the behaviour of the vandals themselves. Nice to see where the priorities lie. --Stephen Burnett 14:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not that hard. We all have to do it. All too often I come across a vandal only to see that he's been vandalizing pages for months and not one single person ever bothered to slap a warning on his page. If you're not willing to do what you need to do, you shouldn't expect immediate results. Kafziel Talk 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. We don't. Or at least, I don't. Not any more. --Stephen Burnett 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In my prolific experiences as a vandal fighter. Many vandals think that they are getting away with it. When that yellow box pops up, a majority of all vandals i have warned stop. It is the ones that continue after the warning that are the danger to wikipedia. Many of these are school kids, afraid they will get in trouble. That is why a {{Test}} warning actually works in my experience. It is the ones that push the limits, who vandalize after the warnings that need to be reported. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Chris is right. Take this edit for example, which just happened a few minutes ago. The IP vandalized one article in a relatively minor way. Immediately, an editor issued a "blatant vandal" warning - the only warning issued in almost a week - and, if that wasn't enough of an overreaction, didn't even wait for another edit from the IP before reporting it at AIV. So one kid made one edit to one article, and we're supposed to block the school for that? No. Reporting like that just wastes everyone's time, because the responding admin has to double check all these reports intead of just trusting that they were done properly. Kafziel Talk 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a good illustration of the point I made earlier - one which you are apparently determined to ignore. After the so-called "final warning", which of course was not final at all, nothing happened for a week. The kids know the game - because they're dealing with an entity which has a limited memory, all they have to do is wait a few days for the slate to be wiped clean. Then the whole cycle starts again, until it goes right up to another "final warning". Is it so inexplicable, or even surprising, that an editor gets frustrated at having *his* time wasted, and over-reacts? --Stephen Burnett 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How do you know it's the same kid? Or that they even saw the warning? When someone posts a message to you, it only says "you have new messages" until you look at your talk page. So if someone other than the vandal looked at the warning, the vandal might never even notice it.
What you seem to misunderstand is that blocking is not supposed to be used as a punishment; it's supposed to be used to stop active disruption. If the vandals aren't active, they don't need to be stopped.
Admins aren't robots; we can use common sense just as well as you can. If I see that edits appear to be from the same person, I won't require the full set of blocks every time. I spent a long time in your position, so I know how frustrating it can be. But I also found that following the rules gets much better results than complaining about them or trying to get around them. I don't let vandals game the system, but I don't let vandal fighters game the system, either. The rules are there for a reason. Kafziel Talk 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be the same kid. One game that seems pretty popular, for instance, is for several kids to use a page to pass messages / insults / whatever to each other. When the "final warning" goes up, they all know the fun's over for a while; then it starts again. As for the rules - the reason they are there is to support someone's conviction that the world works in a certain way, because he thinks it ought to. As I said: a victory of ideology over common sense. Frustrating? Damn right - but not any more. Someone else can do my share. Or not. I really don't care any more. Theresa Knott gave me some good advice earlier, which I fully intend to follow. --Stephen Burnett 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
While that may not be what wikipedia is for (passing messages and such), that could be the gateway for just one of those kids to get interested in contributing. I always look at vandalism as something that can be removed. Losing a possible contributor because of a block cant be, "reverted". We can argue about this all day, but I think the blocking policy was fairly well desgined to protect this. What is wikipedia? the enclylopedia that anybody can edit. By blocking anons punitivly, we take that right away from the next person who may be here for good. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

←I think in the end, as stated by Theresa below, just not getting emotionally involved is the best way to do it. I dont profile specific ip address, i profile vandalism. When I find vandalism, i go to warn. I check, has there been a recent warning? if not, i give one. if so, i either escalate or report. After that, i forget that vandal and move on to the next. As stated by kafziel above, how do i know the same kid is vandalizing? chances are its not in many cases, especially the school. Sure, a block of an entire school will fix the vandalism problem (which can generally be fixed with a quick revert from the large rc patrol team we have) but may block a truly interested editor. One student, sees a problem with a page and goes to fix it just to find that they are blocked. the frustrated student gives up and we lost a potential long term contributor. We cant fix that with a quick revert from the army of rc patrollers.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is not get emotionally involved in it. Vandals are usually just kids mucking about and not anything to get upset about.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm relatively new here, and have been trying to fight off the vandals. I can't believe Wikipedia has such a cumbersome vandal warning system that is heavily tilted in favor of those who only want to disrupt, and the jumping through hoops that have to be done by responsible people to report vandalism. What a colossal waste of time for people who would rather do some worthwhile editing. The vandals know how to game this broken system, and Wikipedia is the worse for it. - Pod Bay Door 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to go write as many articles as you want! I will handle the vandals for you! No worrys. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism patrol is not as effective as it gives itself credit for. Example: Museum of Appalachia was the victim of four separate vandalism incidents during the period November 6 to December 7. The second of the four bogus changes was quickly reverted, but the other three bogus changes remained until I found them earlier today. All of the vandals appear to be vandalism-only accounts (one of which has been blocked repeatedly). Yes, high-profile articles are regularly patrolled and the most blatant types of vandalism are detected effectively, but bored 12-year-olds sitting in their middle-school study halls can do a lot of damage to contents of lower-profile articles without being noticed. It seems to me that there are many IPs on which permanent blocks would do far more good than harm.--orlady 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I get frustrated as hell too, but we just have to learn to live with it. Community policy is not going to change. The view of the powers-that-be is that the principle of open participation outweighs almost all else. That's true even if the resulting tolerance of vandalism makes constructive contributors give up in despair -- one wonders about the implications of WP:POINT here. It's the price one pays for the privilege of contributing their time and expertise. Raymond Arritt 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to "learn to live with it"; we could always change our policies to make a different tradeoff on the accept-vandalism vs. suck in new contributors spectrum. I note that Citizendium has taken two steps we've been reluctant to take: They DON'T allow any anonymous editing and they have a one strike policy on vandals. It will be interesting to see how they evolve versus Wikipedia. People have waxed poetic above about how vandals might quickly convert themselves into being useful contributors; I think that's true in a few cases, but in the vast majority of cases, only age and maturity will have any chance of turning a vandal into a productive contributor. And in many cases, nothing will help; the vandal is already as mature as they're going to get and will always remain a vandal.
Atlant 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are several things you are not taking into account. Anon IP's can be used by hundreds or thousands of editors. I am ok with a 1 or 2 strike policy for named editors but anons i cant agree with that because the way it works with named editors is very very very different from anon ip's. Sure, the vandals may not mature but, but, if they are at school, the kdi next to them might feel bad and want to fix the mistake. An 1 strike block could prevent large nubmers of anon editors from contributing. I will be the first to argue that I dont think vandals are going to change there minds. And yes, those repetititve vandals, who push ths limits, vandalize after warnings, should be blocked to prevent current ongoing damage to wikipedia. However, a very very very large number of vandals stop (at least for me) after a friendly test1 warning. They have no idea that what they see is what everybody can see. They may think it is there own personal copy for them to do with what they please. It is only vandals who blatantly continue their vandalism after a final warning which should be temporarily blocked (i.1. less than 48 hours)-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, I understand the difference between dynamic IPs and static IPs. We should make an effort, through software, to automatically identify and tag (reverse DNS) every static IP and we should then treat these static IPs exactly as we treat named users. We should also "rate limit" dynamic IPs so that they can't make more than, say, 10 edits per week, encouraging the dynamic IP user with every edit to register a username. And we should get a lot less tolerant of vandalism from all sources.
Atlant 14:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Schools and WHOIS

Especially when dealing with IPs who seem to talk to themselves, put "___ WAS HERE", and do other similar edits, a WHOIS check never hurts. The {{ipvandal}} template has a link for it, or you can just use [28]. Mark shared IPs with {{SharedIP}}, {{SharedIPPublic}} or {{SharedIPEDU}}, and if blocking an educational institute you may want to use {{schoolblock}} as a block message.

Just saying. I've caught a few unmarked schools today who were previously blocked by other admins. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I eventually plan to make my bot put a note by reports that are in the sharedip or schoolip categories. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 12:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note: the arin.net whois does not always refer to the other RIRs when needed, especially for APNIC. It's good to have apnic.net bookmarked for such cases. (I personally use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/nqt.php for my WHOIS searching. ;)) Essjay (Talk) 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I try to check any IP address that looks shared, before or after blocking -- frequently schools or companies, sometimes seems more dialup proxies and such. The school ones especially usually have a certain class of contribs -- I'd bet money you know what I mean, if you've looked a few times. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Schools and WHOIS

Especially when dealing with IPs who seem to talk to themselves, put "___ WAS HERE", and do other similar edits, a WHOIS check never hurts. The {{ipvandal}} template has a link for it, or you can just use [29]. Mark shared IPs with {{SharedIP}}, {{SharedIPPublic}} or {{SharedIPEDU}}, and if blocking an educational institute you may want to use {{schoolblock}} as a block message.

Just saying. I've caught a few unmarked schools today who were previously blocked by other admins. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I eventually plan to make my bot put a note by reports that are in the sharedip or schoolip categories. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 12:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note: the arin.net whois does not always refer to the other RIRs when needed, especially for APNIC. It's good to have apnic.net bookmarked for such cases. (I personally use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/nqt.php for my WHOIS searching. ;)) Essjay (Talk) 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I try to check any IP address that looks shared, before or after blocking -- frequently schools or companies, sometimes seems more dialup proxies and such. The school ones especially usually have a certain class of contribs -- I'd bet money you know what I mean, if you've looked a few times. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Instructions

Greetings! I've been working on a new function for the HBC AIV helperbots, which will allow them to automatically fix the instructions block that sits in an HTML comment at the start of the User-reported section of AIV. I understand that this feature has been requested a number of times, and I have seen plenty of cases where the instructions have been messed up by improper reporting while I've been working on the bots, so I know it is needed. What I'm looking for is feedback on a slightly modified version of the instructions that I have come up with to use when this function is approved and goes live. They can be seen and tweaked until everyone is happy at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/instructions. To prevent vandals from being able to force the bots to place arbitrary text on the page, these instructions will need to be protected before we go live, so I felt it best to get consensus on them before that time. The instructions are a bit more strongly worded than what is currently on the page, but I've attempted to strike an appropriate balance between getting correctly formatted results and not biting too hard. All feedback and tweaks to the instructions are welcome, on the instructions, or on this feature itself. —Krellis (Talk) 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This function has been approved for testing and is currently in operation on HBC AIV helperbot3. Please feel free to comment on the bot request for approval page, as well as here. If the feature is causing problems, you can disable it by changing FixInstructions=On to FixInstructions=Off in the bot's parameter string at the top of WP:AIV. —Krellis (Talk) 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing a report without acting on it

I reported 69.177.239.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism and the report was removed without anyone acting on it because they are not, currently, at this very second, vandalizing. But they were vandalizing earlier today, have been vandalizing for several days, have been blocked once for the exact same behavior. Why not block them so they won't come back when nobody is watching them and do it again? Corvus cornix 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add a similar situation: 71.230.69.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP address has been blocked three times, the last Feb. 16. The address was responsible for three clear vandal edits last night. I just noticed them this morning, but my report was dismissed because there was no "recent notice." The reason that I feel this incident should trigger a review of policy is one of the acts of vandalism I fixed today from this IP had gone undetected since Feb. 13. It involved changing dates and numbers in an article Vega program and could easily mislead a reader. I came upon it reading the article, not by following a vandalism trail. Other readers might not have picked up on the minor inconsistency I noticed. If we keep giving someone with a clear pattern of vandalism the benefit of the doubt, sooner or later they will cause undetected damage. Vandalizing after blocks should result in a longer block without the need for additional warning, in my opinion. --agr 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't block IP addresses without warning because the person using any specific IP address can change. If there's a similar pattern that makes it clear the IP is static rather than dynamic, then we usually block for steadily increasing periods of time, but still only after warning unless the abuse coming from the IP is long-term and then there's usually a talk page message indicating that the IP may be blocked without warning.--Kchase T 10:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But the guy has been warned, many times, and has already been blocked once before. The IP appears to be static, or at least only the one guy seems to be editing from it, because all of the edits have been these hoaxes. Corvus cornix 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing stale reports

Where an IP is reported and it has clearly become stale e.g. over an hour has ellapsed without further vandalism, is it acceptable for non-admins to remove to remove such reports. I just did so a minute ago, but it occurs to me that maybe I shouldn't have. What do people think? WjBscribe 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. I think the idea that a report becomes stale in an hour is ridiculous. If you really believed that, then you'd never block for more than an hour. If it's acceptable to block an IP for a day, then a report can't become stale in less than a day. By refusing to act on a report, after editors have gone through the trouble of issuing repeated warnings, and have issued a final warning which has been ignored, you're telling those editors not to bother any more. And you're telling the vandals that a "final warning" just means "take an hour's break and you'll be fine". -- Zsero 14:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's fine, I just edit conflicted with you trying to clear the place out :) Well, I think it's fine... – riana_dzasta 11:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why non-admins shouldn't remove stale reports. Obviously they shouldn't remove current reports, but I see nothing that suggests that old reports can't be removed. James086Talk 11:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's fine. It might be a good job for the helperbot, actually. It might be best to stick to removing IP addresses - registered users can be blocked even after they've stopped vandalising. --Tango 13:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, no suggestion named accounts should be removed. We know accounts are the same person and there's no collateral damage to other users in issue. WjBscribe 14:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion,reports become definitivelystale after maybe 24 to 48 hours.I cannot see the reason to remove one report only 1 hour old.Also,if a report is 6 hours old,and you think (Please think carefully) that he has stopped,remove it BUT once he vandalises again,report immediately to catch him off guard 121.7.56.203 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a little reulctant. What definenes stale? Sure a vandal may have been reported to WP:AIV for over an hour but maybye they are still vandalising? A quick check on the contribs could do that (which I am sure most admin do anyways before blocking). The question is, what defines stale? I think time, in and of itself, is an innapropriate measure for this. It should be directly based on how long it has been since they have edited since the last warning. Now, if there is a time limit when, after last warning there is no activity, i would not have a problem with non admins possibly removing it. I however think it opens the doors for people possibly removing reports of themselves and it not being checked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, my question related to where an hour or more had passed since the last edit by the account that was vandalism (not the time of the AIV report). WjBscribe 15:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that is a little better. It seems like a decent idea however I still have some reservations. When I start seeing names i dont recognize removing reports, I get concerned. (maybye that is just me though). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any statistical validation for the frequent statements that if an IP has not vandalized in the past hour it is unlikely to vandalize again in the next twenty-four hours? What are the reliable sources for that belief? I bet that if you did a probability study you would find that if an IP address has had a vandalism incident within the past week, the probability that there will be another vandalism incident within the next week is elevated compared with a random IP. If that hypothesis is true, then failure to block IP addresses with vandalism in the past week can be shown statistically to increase the level of vandalism on Wikipedia. Buddhipriya 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, an IP that's being used to edit Wikipedia is more likely than a random IP that may not be used for anything at all. Schools are certainly more likely to vandalize than businesses (although businesses are more likely to spam). But there's no way to know that it's the same vandal as yesterday, or even an hour ago. High School classes change every 45 to 60 minutes, with a whole new crop of kids strolling into the computer lab or the study hall. They have no reason to see the warnings we gave to the last kids who were in there. We don't go so overboard as to wipe a school's slate clean after each hour, but wiping it clean every couple of days is perfectly reasonable. Kafziel Talk 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't go so overboard as to wipe a school's slate clean after each hour. But that's exactly what you do - or at least, it's what admins such as Delirium do, and it's precisely that behaviour that I'm complaining about. Removing a report because no vandalism has come from that IP for a whole hour means that the vandal has no reason at all to pay attention to warnings, no matter how dire or "final" they claim to be. He laughs at being reported to AIV, because he knows that the report will never be acted on, and that by the time he comes back for another round of vandalism it will have disappeared down the memory hole. If that's really going to be the policy around here, then the warning page should say that we should never give a "final warning" to an IP address, because it's likely to be meaningless. And if that's going to be the policy then IP addresses should never be blocked for more than an hour. Zsero 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you have just made the case for why IP users should not be allowed to edit. Buddhipriya 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'd be the first one to sign a petition for that. But it's not going to happen any time soon. Some people think anonymous editing is what makes Wikipedia great. It's certainly been tremendously more successful than other wikis that require registration. Vandalism is just part of the give and take. Kafziel Talk 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I still stick by the statement I have made many times. You can always revert vandalism. The history will always be there. You can never revert a lost possible long term editor due to forced sign ups, blocks, or other reasons that would prevent it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:PEREN#Prohibit anonymous users from editing for previous discussion... many, many many previous discussions... about IP editors :o) 〈REDVEЯS〉 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see [30] for documentation of why that policy is no longer appropriate if Wikipedia is to move to the next level. I will withdraw from the thread as I understand this is not something to be settled here. Buddhipriya 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue I have with stale reports (i.e. reports more than 30 minutes old or so) is that most are from shared IPs where the person who was doing the vandalism is probably no longer at the computer anymore. If they do return, we can always block them then; it's not a huge deal. --Delirium 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's truly a dynamic IP that changes frequently (like a dialup line), there is value in retaining the old reports since they help to establish a pattern. This is especially the case for schools. Yes, it's possible to go back through the Talk page history to look for old warnings but levels of vandalism often are so high that it's impractical to do so. Raymond Arritt 23:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated

I filed this report (mostly because I wasn't sure where else to go) but it was removed with the only explanation coming in the edit summary: "too complex for AIV" Could someone help me out? The report follows:

Thanks ahead of time. : )

--A mcmurray 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone please help me out here. I am trying to defend the Wiki and am getting no help. I am not sure what to do. I need someone's help.A mcmurray 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Situations that are beyond obvious vandalism can be listed at WP:AN/I. — xaosflux Talk 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:UsernameBlocked-vandal

BigDT (talk · contribs), an admin who participates on WP:RFC/NAME, mentioned there:

New - Optionally, if you block a name that is clearly vandalism or trolling, you can use {{subst:UsernameBlocked-vandal}}.

I've moved the line off RFC/NAME because that page really isn't for discussing "grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames" -- these should be reported to WP:AIV instead. This is really not an RFC-related template. However, I've mentioned it to to the template-messages/user-talk-namespace and WikiProject-user-warnings talk pages, for fitting into the new standardized scheme -- so the template name might get changed.

BigDT comments: "The singular thing that I care about is that in some fashion, people who are obviously sockpuppets of banned users, individuals creating trolling usernames, etc, don't receive the standard {{usernameblock}} message that invites them to create a new account. Whether the template is named unbv, uw-name4, whatever, and where the template is listed, I am really not picky one bit." (There was more discussion here.) -- Ben 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Backlog at this page

Admins, please address this. Thanks. --Dweller 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting proposal on the Village Pump

There's been an interesting proposal on the Village Pump for a new way to prevent vandalism. RC patrollers' opinions would be much appreciated. Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I'm freaked out kinda

Some user named User:Kgb23 posted an uw-vandalism4 warning on me. I don't plan on vandalizing so why'd he do that? --Addict 2006 22:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it's still that BBB guy. --Addict 2006 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

kgb23 (talk • contribs) registered that ID just today and has been doing a lot of that—at least one other one seems to refer to you as well. — Athænara ✉ 01:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Could there be a chance he's a well intentioned but woefully incompetent vandal fighter? Raymond Arritt 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd hazard a guess that the probability of that is asymptotic to zero. Note in the Bbb00723 talk page history that most of Kgb23's targets are users (admins or not) who have previously warned or chided Bbb00723 (talk • contribs). — Æ. ✉ 06:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. One of his first edits was to readd a template to BBB's userpage that had previously been removed by an admin. He then followed to tell others to stop vandalizing "his site", as BBB did. And he was specifically harassing those people who previous warned BBB himself. I've indef blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Very appropriate, I'd say :-D  — Æ. ✉ 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is yet-another emerging style of vandalism; I blocked another user yesterday Here to (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was doing this. Atlant 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism image uploaded over correct image

Not sure who to tell, but a vandal (User:Fifa1234) uploaded an image over a good image at Image:Zorro.jpg. It's supposed to be a book cover, but they uploaded an anime picture of a character of the same name over it. If you do fix it, you can revert my removal of the image from Zorro (novel) where the original was correct. - Peregrine Fisher 20:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure it was vandalism, maybe just an honest mistake. They removed the image from where they had transcluded it. It still needs to be rolled back, if that's even possible with images. - Peregrine Fisher 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you can find the version of the image you want below the image (you'll see all the people who have uploaded it etc.) and click the link that says "(rev)". Heimstern Läufer 20:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I already reverted and posted an explanation on the user's talk page. Hopefully that will settle the problem. Kafziel Talk 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What's the definition of "active now"?

I'd like some clarification of this sentence: "The vandal is active now." Does "now" mean today? This week? This moment? Please add the clarification to the project page. DBlomgren 02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to interpret it as something like "within the previous 10 minutes", but different people probably have different views. --Delirium 03:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case, what's the point of giving a "final warning"? Earlier today I reported a vandal who'd vandalised past the final warning, and you deleted it with the note "remove IPs that haven't edited in the past hour". Doesn't that make a mockery of the "final warning"? Perhaps the warning should be changed to: "If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia you will be blocked (but only if you do it nonstop forever; if you take a break every so often then you're free to continue vandalising)."
Another thing: admins here seem to insist that warnings be given in strict order. But WP:Vandalism clearly says "There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession". So what's the deal? -- Zsero 08:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am also feeling very frustrated by the lack of enforcement of what on the surface seem like clear warnings. Does final warning mean that, or not? Failure to enforce these rules wastes tremendous amounts of time by those who are disrupted. Is it more important to retain a vandal in hopes they will shape up, or retain a person who has made an effort to fight vandalism? Buddhipriya 08:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any, you know, specific examples? You have to understand that a lot of the time IPs are not being operated the same person who was previously warned. Every blocking is judged on a case-by-case basis. If you really think it's the same person, point out similarities in your AIV report and it might be looked at more closely. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Effectively, what that means is that the vandal has already stopped on their own. A lot of IP addresses are shared (amazing how many vandal IP addresses trace back to schools...), and also may be dynamic. Generally, though, if I see an IP with a long page of warnings and blocks, they'll receive a BV or 4im warning rather than the usual 1 or 2 for the first go-round. If they stop after that, well, they only vandalized once, not much harm done. Blocks are intended to prevent harm, not punish an offender. If the harm's stopped on its own, a block would be punitive. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but what if they don't stop? What if they continue vandalising, but they're not bots, they do have other things to do, so they only vandalise a few times a day? It's a hobby, not a profession. If the standard is that nothing will be done unless they've vandalised within the past hour, then why would they ever stop? You give them one warning, and then the next, and then the next, and finally you report them on AIV, and next thing you know the report is removed without action because they haven't vandalised for a whole hour! If that's going to happen, why should I bother warning them in the first place? Why bother reporting them, if nothing is going to happen, and why make a fool of myself by issuing a "final warning" when it's a paper tiger?
And don't tell me that "every blocking is judged on a case-by-case basis", when admins "remove IPs that haven't edited in the past hour". That's not judging on a case by case basis. -- Zsero 09:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not just talking about IP cases. Take a look at this case involving User:Nasz that has at this point gotten three different threads going on on the incident noticeboard. Here is a link to one of the incident sections where I have posted crosslinks to two other incident reports on the same page: [Nasz sightings] Buddhipriya 08:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What about the harm that is done to the solid users who are victimized by these vandals? In your calculus you must factor in the amount of time lost by many people. A vandal may make many edits on many pages before becoming bored. Then it may take much more time to unscramble it than it took to break it, particularly if the edits are not obvious. The total time lost to the community is harm. Buddhipriya 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: I think "active now" should mean that the account has been used to vandalise within the past week. It should only exclude ancient history, not vandalism that happened an hour ago. -- Zsero 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the past week would be very reasonable. As a non-admin I am trying to understand how a user with an account (not an IP user) could wind up with three active incident reports going simultaneously, making dozens of disruptive edits after final warnings within the past few days, and still be active "now" defined as within the past few hours? Buddhipriya 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Registered users than do nothing but vandalise can be blocked at any time as a "vandalism only account", the "active now" thing doesn't really apply. --Tango 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with those who are frustrated at the ease at which repeat-offender vandals can do their dirty work here Wikipedia. Bending over backwards in their favor is doing harm to those who want Wikipedia to be a reliable source, and too many times I've seen this 'not recent enough activity' excuse come up for not doing a block. The vandals know exactly how to game this broken system. - Itsfullofstars 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Blocks are intended to prevent harm, not punish an offender." makes a ridiculous distinction. Punishment IS intended to prevent harm by deterring bad behavior or disabling the perpetrator from repeating it. JRSpriggs 09:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Punishment does prevent harm, but it isn't the only way of preventing harm. Blocks prevent harm directly, they prevent harm by acting as a deterrent as well, but that's just a side effect, that's not the reason we block vandals. --Tango 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Blame the ambiguity of 'very much','extreme' and the family of such words!Any way,active now just means the vandal will vandalise again... Of course,if a Vandal has so much free time to precisely mock the power of warnings by time and time again taking a weekly break of vandalising a page every time,it is reasonable to block due to the fact that if so and so person takes a week break after vandalising a page,he can continue freely and mock and laugh at the warnings and people. Also,this ambiguity applies to a series of warnings. I'd say 3 warnings with the last being a Level 4 or 'Severe' makes it a 'series' of warnings,although it need not be in order and there may not be 3,maybe 2 only(Rare,you don't promote a 2 to 4,nor should you warn a person with a starting level of 3).Bottom line:being 'Active' is a GUIDELINE,if someone vandalises So and so page 52 times a year due to bordom,so and so admin should block that bored dude.121.7.56.203 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got that backwards. It's not that a vandal has so much free time, but so little. The people who aren't interested in any vandalism that happened more than an hour ago seem to be concerned only about vandals who have no life, never eat, sleep, or use the euphemism, and vandalise at least once an hour. The ordinary vandals who hits a few pages, and having scratched the itch goes off to do something else until the next time they're bored, these admins don't seem to care about them. Zsero 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We very much do. And if it is a named editor, they will get blocked almost no question. The other issue is anons editing under IP addresses. How do we know it is the same pesron? IP addresses change. we can revert vandalism, we cant revert a possible lost editor due to a punitive block on an anon that has stopped.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone wants to make a genuine edit and the IP is blocked, why can't they just create an account? -- Zsero 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Most IP blocks prevent account creation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that seems counterproductive. We should be encouraging people to create accounts, so they can be held accountable, so to speak. Can't you block an IP from anonymous edits, but allow account creation? -- Zsero 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Technically yes, but that infringes on another whole controversial topic. Accoding to your reasoning they should have to sign in to be held accountable when one of the important concepts of wikipedia is that you should be able to edit anonymously. By blocking an anon IP, and forcing an editor to sign up for an account kind of goes agains the spirit. I think that is why the blocking policy is written to include a statement that says only should be used to prevent current ongoing vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The standard warning templates seem defective to me because they do not include any that allow you to note a pattern of behavior by the vandal. All of them are looking at single incidents of changes to specific pages. There needs to be a series of warnings that can be used to draw attention to observed patterns of behavior. On recent change patrol I often find a single vandalism change to a page. I revert that change. I then check the contribution log for that vandal and find they have just made similar vandalism on a dozen other pages. I then go to the vandal's talk page and what am I to post, using the standard warning templates? Is there a template for "This vandal has just trashed a dozen pages in the past hour?" Buddhipriya 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What I do is enter the template with one instance, save it, and then edit the result to add all the other pages. Zsero 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You can include all you want in the warning. I generally just check to make sure it has been give. I review the lkast 50 contribs, compare them with the last warning. If i notice an extreme patter, like they are all to the same article then I may block. Otherwise, i wont make that asusmption. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that I can enter anything into the warning, thanks. The point I am making is that even if there is a demonstrable pattern of abuse across many pages, it seems that the fact that only a single warning about it has been given is used an excuse to permit the vandal to continue. The standard warning templates have no templates that are appropriate to flag patterns of abuse. It would be easier for those of us who do recent change patrol if there were such templates. Buddhipriya 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What I have done is issue one warning, escalated as required, for each incident of vandalism that has taken place on different articles. That seems to have been criticsed in the past week or so, and so I am at a loss as to what to do. I think this area is where the advice given should be clarified about warnings, making explicit what one should consider and what to do in certain situations. The additional problem I have seen is where vandalising attempts have been reverted, but no warning has been logged. This then prevents any easy detection of patterns. When one attempts to make a case for patterns of vandalism in the appropriate places, one is said to have misunderstood what "active now" means. The whole area needs looking at and clarified. However, I imagine people might say they do not have enough time to take this task on board. Of course, they will not if they continue to implement a policy which allows so much vandalism to occur which requires time to revert, and yet which seems to have few consequences to those committing it.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do warnings time-out?

So, if a user's last warning was uw-test3 or 4 how many days have to pass before it resets to 1? In other words, if a user has gotten a first level warning and I see that the same person vandalized something the next day can a set the second level? After 3 days? 10? --Kimon 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't a requirement that you need to begin with level 1 every time. According to the template page level 1 assumes "good faith", level 2 assumes "no faith" and level 3 assumes "bad faith." So it's something of a judgement call. I view standard juvenile vandalism usually as level 2, or level 1 if it could be interpreted as a genuine test. I have no problem going straight to level 3 for particularly vicious, racist vandalism. Raymond Arritt 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. I was just using an example. But, the original question remains, is the escalation time-bound in any way? --Kimon 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Tricky question. I'd bet you twenty wikibucks no two editors will give you quite the same answer. :p In my case, if a shared IP address (say, a high school) has only bad edits, going back a month or more, on a regular basis (several times a week), then we don't need to bother waiting for somebody to pass t4. It's a drain on resources, and blocks are preventive, anyway (in this case, preventing needless damage and effort). If, on the other hand, the vandalism is more dispered, either over time or because there's some (maybe even any) good edits, I'm far more hesitant to block the same way. I'd say it also depends a bit on whether it seems to be the same person -- sometimes a person will come back and make the same sorts of edits, at the same pages, a few days later, and in those cases I'd still consider the prior warnings valid. So, um, it's tricky, I guess. I don't have a hard and fast decision rule, just yet. Not sure if anybody does. Good question, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
When I started posting warning on users' talk pages I would the 24hr rule but, then I saw that the norm was several days. Then I posted an IP address to the AIV to be blocked (it had a t4 from 2 weeks ago) and it was rejected and I got a nice message on my talk page. So, that's what got me wondering. If I'm going to report vandals to be blocked, I want to do it in whatever parameters WP sets. --Kimon 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you would need to start all over each day or anything. It seems most admins (though as Luna said, this is not universal) would like to see at least one warning issued (and subsequently ignored) on the same day you report the vandal. Exactly how recent it needs to be depends on the admin. Kafziel Talk 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
And I'm fine with that Kafziel, I wasn't bothered, I just got curious. And it appears there isn't a consensus. You're right though that it was while since the last warning was posted (Feb 8th I believe), I went to the AIV since that last one was a t4 and it had to do with vandalism with malicious intent. I may have jumped the gun though. Oh well, lesson learned. I still think that a general rule of thumb should exist. A rule of "at least one warning must be posted within the last 24hrs" may be a good start for posting to the AIV. --Kimon 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the IP hadn't made any vandalism edits in 2 weeks since receiving the warning, it's likely a block wouldn't have prevented any (as it may have been shared or the person simply wasn't coming to Wikipedia anymore). Blocks have to be timely and preventative, rather than punitive. Leebo86 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The other point I was trying to make was that an IP address isn't necessarily a single user, so an old warning might not be seen. Leebo86 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point --Kimon 20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's why we do that. You also might want to see this thread from a couple of weeks ago, and this thread from a few days ago. They might not answer every question, but they'll better illustrate the feelings of various admins on the subject. Kafziel Talk 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
For me, it depends largely on the nature of the user. I will count t3/t4 on a registered user even if it is fairly old, because we know it is the same person being warned. I need a more recent warning before blocking on an IP that appears static, since it is possible that it is actually a different user. For shared IPs, I only block if the final warning is quite recent because it is highly likely a new user is at the keyboard. On the other hand, if abuse from these shared IPs (such as school IPs) is chronic, I may block without a final warning at all. Those are my guidelines, but other admins do things differently. Like non-admin vandal fighers, we tend to rely on intuition, which may be imperfect but is better than rigid instruction creep. --Ginkgo100talk 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/Archive_4&oldid=1190272240"