Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 5

message: Perhaps I'm getting too involved in this and having done my 3 reverts in 24 hours, I'll use the time to cool off, but surely calling someone a racist, paedophile and sexist is vandalism. I'm willing to take NawlinWiki's point about how it can be viewed as a content dispute and I suppose there's a fine line between the two categories. Paulhinds 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Paul Dacre]]

message: Okay, these pages go in circles.  One page says that stuff like this goes in another page, and that page links to another, and then that page links back at the first one, so I'm going to report this person here.  He only edits the Gobots article.  He has changed it 12 times.  He always does the same thing.  He changes it from Gobots to K-Mart Bots or something.  Obvious vandal.  Please ban.Triikan 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:GoGoGobots 

message: For some reason, recent vandal reports that have been made have not been able to use the Wikipedia code and have simply shown up as the characters that are typed when posting.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot a </nowiki>. I put it in for you. MER-C 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with posts 

message: I created the following template for use with Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. It's  and is seen below:
  Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please reconsider your behavior once the block expires.  
Please consider it's use on offending user talk pages to notify them of being reported on this page. If it's acceptable, let me know what I can do to add it to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Thanks, BrianZ(talk) 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it add to the existing ones? It's a little wordy and contains at least one spelling error as well. --Guinnog 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It adds a link to WP:AIV so that offenders know that there is a record and report of their activity. Less-persistant vandals (such as ten year olds adding the phrase "Joe Smith smells like 3 day old diapers" to the NATO article, may stop at the suggestion that admins are watching them and aware of their activity. Also, Many other templates are in the form of "Stop... or I'll say stop again." By using this template, non-admins can state that the offending user has been warned several times and now reported as a final resort. As far as spelling error... Where? I can be wordy myself so I understand what you're saying. :) Thanks for your input BrianZ(talk) 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Made changes based on Guinnog's suggestions. BrianZ(talk) 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made changes like you requested, as after hearing your POV I agree with you 100% EWS23. Please see changed template above. The warning itself still let's the offender know that they have been reported to administration and blocking is most likely inevitable yet it's not in a threatening tone. BrianZ(talk) 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This template seems sorta usless to me...This thing seems like an inbetween for test4 and test5, which is pretty pointless to me. KojiDude (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never thought that test4 and test5 were something a regular editor without admin permissions should use. They basically say, "Stop, or you might get blocked if an admin notices your vandalism." (Unless I'm wrong and they are added to a category that admins regularly check). This template tells the vandal that administration has been notified of their behavior directly. If I'm wrong and test4 and test5 do add a user to a list patrolled by admins than I agree, this template wouldn't be needed. I personally never tell someone they'll be blocked the next time that they vandalize if I can't be sure they will. BrianZ(talk) 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a big fan of telling people they've been reported here. It effectively says "I want to block you, but have no power myself" which just encourages vandals as they know they're getting away with it. -- Steel 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand what you're saying but, if used correctly and the user is added to the WP:AIV page at the same time, they won't be getting away with anything. I also disagree that non-admins don't have power. I think that we all have power to make WP better, we just don't have permissions to block users. We have the power to notify administration to curtail vandalism and other poor behavior. BrianZ(talk) 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to arbitrarily add a template I created to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I was under the impression that it should be voted on and approved by a group. I was trying to do the right thing. If it's unneccessary I'll add it to the page. BrianZ(talk) 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A vote isn't really appropriate. If you want consensus, you have to convince others that the template is good, or be convinced that it isn't, not take down numbers. Do you think that the current templates, specifically the ones with the stop hand that say it is your "last warning" and you will be blocked for vandalism, are ineffective? I don't think that a vandal should at all be notified of this page, or given any sort of peek at how Wikipedia works to stop vandalism. If this vandalism will encourage vandals to come to this page and remove vandalism warnings, of it will be a sort of WP:BEANS, that leads them to realize they could mess up Wikipedia even more than just adding obscene words, that escalates the problem from what might just a be a kid who will stop given  and someone who realizes they could have even more "fun" by messing up administrative noticeboards, etc. All the vandal needs to know is that he will be blocked if he continues. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But you know this, don't you? ;-); btw, I don't see a need at all for this template, and have to echo Centrx in this regard. Lectonar 09:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you Centrx, It's the reason I changed the template. It no longer points users to WP:AIV because it has already been said that leading vandals here is inapproriate. I feel that the template is neccessary for non-admins, because we can't be sure that they'll be blocked when we place a warning on their talk page. I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend and thought about this alot and now have a fresh look at this discussion, I'm even more convinced the template should be used and since improvements have been made based on everyone's concerns, I would consider this voting/consensus a success. I do feel I did the right thing, and I will continue to ask for peer advice before adding templates to Wiki community pages. Solution: I'll add the template to my userspace and use it myself and if others would like to use it, they can find out where it is. I will not add it to the Template Messages page though. Maybe someone, who is more qualified then myself, will in the future. Thanks for all your valued input, each one of you should receive a wikithanks and I would if I had more time. :)  BrianZ(talk) 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've created a template for use with this page 

message: Please discuss improvements to the possible template in the space above.  If we can't come to a concensus, then I'd just assume the template be deleted. Please vote here:
*Yes - Granted it's my template, but I've had about 3 instances in which I wished I had something like this in the last 2 weeks. It's why I created it. BrianZ(talk) 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to arbitrarily add a template I created to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I was under the impression that it should be voted on and approved by a group. I was trying to do the right thing. If it's unneccessary I'll add it to the page. BrianZ(talk) 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A vote isn't really appropriate. If you want consensus, you have to convince others that the template is good, or be convinced that it isn't, not take down numbers. Do you think that the current templates, specifically the ones with the stop hand that say it is your "last warning" and you will be blocked for vandalism, are ineffective? I don't think that a vandal should at all be notified of this page, or given any sort of peek at how Wikipedia works to stop vandalism. If this vandalism will encourage vandals to come to this page and remove vandalism warnings, of it will be a sort of WP:BEANS, that leads them to realize they could mess up Wikipedia even more than just adding obscene words, that escalates the problem from what might just a be a kid who will stop given  and someone who realizes they could have even more "fun" by messing up administrative noticeboards, etc. All the vandal needs to know is that he will be blocked if he continues. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But you know this, don't you? ;-); btw, I don't see a need at all for this template, and have to echo Centrx in this regard. Lectonar 09:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you Centrx, It's the reason I changed the template. It no longer points users to WP:AIV because it has already been said that leading vandals here is inapproriate. I feel that the template is neccessary for non-admins, because we can't be sure that they'll be blocked when we place a warning on their talk page. I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend and thought about this alot and now have a fresh look at this discussion, I'm even more convinced the template should be used and since improvements have been made based on everyone's concerns, I would consider this voting/consensus a success. I do feel I did the right thing, and I will continue to ask for peer advice before adding templates to Wiki community pages. Solution: I'll add the template to my userspace and use it myself and if others would like to use it, they can find out where it is. I will not add it to the Template Messages page though. Maybe someone, who is more qualified then myself, will in the future. Thanks for all your valued input, each one of you should receive a wikithanks and I would if I had more time. :)  BrianZ(talk) 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for use 

message: *Why are we voting on this? If you want to use it, use it. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. -- Steel 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to arbitrarily add a template I created to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I was under the impression that it should be voted on and approved by a group. I was trying to do the right thing. If it's unneccessary I'll add it to the page. BrianZ(talk) 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A vote isn't really appropriate. If you want consensus, you have to convince others that the template is good, or be convinced that it isn't, not take down numbers. Do you think that the current templates, specifically the ones with the stop hand that say it is your "last warning" and you will be blocked for vandalism, are ineffective? I don't think that a vandal should at all be notified of this page, or given any sort of peek at how Wikipedia works to stop vandalism. If this vandalism will encourage vandals to come to this page and remove vandalism warnings, of it will be a sort of WP:BEANS, that leads them to realize they could mess up Wikipedia even more than just adding obscene words, that escalates the problem from what might just a be a kid who will stop given  and someone who realizes they could have even more "fun" by messing up administrative noticeboards, etc. All the vandal needs to know is that he will be blocked if he continues. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But you know this, don't you? ;-); btw, I don't see a need at all for this template, and have to echo Centrx in this regard. Lectonar 09:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you Centrx, It's the reason I changed the template. It no longer points users to WP:AIV because it has already been said that leading vandals here is inapproriate. I feel that the template is neccessary for non-admins, because we can't be sure that they'll be blocked when we place a warning on their talk page. I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend and thought about this alot and now have a fresh look at this discussion, I'm even more convinced the template should be used and since improvements have been made based on everyone's concerns, I would consider this voting/consensus a success. I do feel I did the right thing, and I will continue to ask for peer advice before adding templates to Wiki community pages. Solution: I'll add the template to my userspace and use it myself and if others would like to use it, they can find out where it is. I will not add it to the Template Messages page though. Maybe someone, who is more qualified then myself, will in the future. Thanks for all your valued input, each one of you should receive a wikithanks and I would if I had more time. :)  BrianZ(talk) 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I noticed that after the main page had been emptied, one entry was still left no matter what I did. Therefore, I added a server-side cache purger. I did not add it to the header because it would purge the header's cache, not this page's cache. Jesse Viviano 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purge link added. 

message: Is it possible we can have more sysops with experience dealing with vandals watching this page? Twice in the past 12 hours I've had to point out an AIV backlog to a sysop on IRC (#wikipedia), but we simply can't afford to have more than a couple of people listed here for more than, say, 10 minutes. It puts more strain on the few RC patrollers we have left (I used to do up to 150 reverts per day but had to stop due to other janitorial tasks needing attention) and doesn't take that long to empty. --Draicone (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to be backlogged more often; not sure if that because there are less admins watching it, or more vandals.  Probably the latter.  You'll probably want to post this elsewhere (if you haven't already), since most of the people liable to read it are probably already watching this page. -- Natalya 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sysops watching this page? 

message: Several times I've seen users get banned while I'm looking into the cases listed on this page, even though they have done nothing since the last/only warning. Just a reminder. (This is a lot easier to do if you set your time zone to +0, so the signature timestamps match those in the contributions log) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to my blocking of User:Luci-chan, I'm pretty sure the blatant vandal warning came between the two acts of vandalism. (It was hard to tell, though, since it all happened in a 2 minute time span, and Wikipedia doesn't give seconds, only minutes) —Mets501 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't referring to any in particular, just been seeing it a bunch over a couple days. If you're trying, don't worry about it :) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem :-) —Mets501 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check timestamp of last warning to that of last vandalism 

message: On point number 3 under the sub-section of Editors, it is stated; The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning. Can I know what is the definition of last few hours. Could it be three or even up to 20 hours? The statement is a bit vague here. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should be the last "couple" hours, basically like 0-3 hours, I think. —Mets501 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends if it's a shared IP address or not, too; you might have ten different users using a shared IP in an hour, but one user with their own IP/account might vandalize articles throughout the entire day.  If you're in doubt about the time being a bit too long, you can always leave a final warning, but use your discretion. -- Natalya 15:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of last few hours? 

message: I was editing my page and  appeared magically. I recently downloaded CorHomo. The discussion page (found by popup) for  has this message:
 This is a page used by kiddie vandals to insert nonsense into Wikipedia.
  Bart133 (t) 02:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media:Example.ogg appears magically; 670+ ghits 

message: Hi,
browsing Wikipedia, I discovered something strange on that page : Spear of destiny (I "reverted" it, look in the history), I think it's form of vandalism but I only read wikipedia, I don't know the terms, there seem to be very much rules and terms, so I try to report it, hope it will help.
thanks 
--
83.214.221.37 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was vandalism, thank you for reverting it . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this appears to be simple vandalism.  Basically what you did was all that needed to me done: revert and move on.  If the user continues to vandalize, simply report them at WP:AIV.  --Chris (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not sure what to do / newbie report 

message: User:209.43.33.201 was warned and blocked on 5 May 2006.  He received another last warning on 15 May 2006 but was not blocked.  Now, on 14 September, he has vandalized again.  I have left a test4 warning.  Is this appropriate.  It has been 4 months since the last vandalism and since this might easily be a school account, it might not be the same person.  Are we supposed to go back to a first-level warning using "test" or should we pick up where we left off with test4?
--Richard 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its possible that the ip address has been reassigned considering it hasnt been used in months. So assuming good faith, I begin from test 1 -- Lost(talk) 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a reverse DNS (that's OK, right?) on the IP and it is indeed a school account, one run by Hamilton Southeastern Schools near Indianapolis. I am inclinded to believe that Richard's analisys is likely correct, and that the gap in vandalism is due to the summer holidays. I'm having a similar problem with the item below. Maury 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some help understanding warning of vandals 

message: ...removing large parts of an article - but part of a content dispute (whereas the warring parties don't communicate) considered vandalism - as per Blanking? --HolyRomanEmperor 09:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be if it's done in bad faith. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, please view Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje (and their talk pages and histories). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is... 

message: ...but WP:AIV is NOT the place to report about bad usernames, is it? --Deenoe 11:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, but it does grab admin's attention if they happen to miss it on the Recent Changes. Doesn't seem to be a big deal to me.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is obviously offensive, this is the correct forum.  See Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames, "Changing inappropriate usernames". Accurizer 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone reported a username that was Mediacorpinc or something like that. --Deenoe 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct me if I'm wrong.. 

message: Okay so can someone please help me out here.  I am being harrassed by TV Newser.  After a long discussion tonight with a fellow wikipedian, I decided to remove a link section that i posted.  This person has now accused me of being a vandal and keeps putting that stupid sockpuppet thing on my user page.  The page in question is Trading card.  He is calling me Scott and instead of going to the talk page to work it out he's just editing everything.  I think there is a limit to the number of reverts and i'm sure we're both in violation.  Can someone help me out.
*The above was placed by  who is showing a lot of the signs of the User:Spotteddogsdotorg sock ring. TV Newser Tipline 10:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP

message: Can we re-do the hidden text and such? It's really tough to figure out exactly where your report belongs and how you should format it. --172.194.17.163 03:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's that difficult. We have 2 sections. Bot reported and user reported. It goes under user reported. As for the format, good rule of thumb on Wikipedia is to try to edit the page and then see how others format the entries. Or you can go through the history. I think the instructions are pretty clear anyway. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh snap. I just realized that when you click the User Alerts deal, it's much better explained-for some reason I kept clicking 'alerts' and got caught up in all the Bot stuff below it.--172.194.17.163 03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The User/IP change helped a bit, thanks. --172.194.17.163 04:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this change makes things more confusing. We humans are supposed to report malfunctioning bots and vandalbots under "User reported", not "Bot reported". The Tawkerbot2 clones and the original get to report on the "Bot reported" section. Jesse Viviano 03:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem when it just says "User" is that it makes it sound like IPs cannot report vandalism, which is incorrect. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is hard to understand...

message: The user Dragonball1986 archived warnings he received today.  Is that allowed?--Vercalos 19:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, consensus on this issue has not been reached and it seems like I come across this issue three or four times a day.  I'm normally in favor of letting users do what they want with their talk pages, but moving only the warnings and calling it "An Archive of Misinterpretations" seems ... not ... good.  (I also hate fake new message boxes, but that's neither here nor there.)  I'll talk to him about how he needs to archive chronologically, not by category.  -- Merope Talk 19:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that warnings older than, say, a day, ought to be archivable. As long as they're present chronologically in an archive for easy review, warnings older than a day mean much less than the block logs. TransUtopian 19:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wasn't an older warning. It was less than 3 hours old.--Vercalos 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the user makes a habit of selectively archiving warnings and -- I ran into this a while ago -- outright refusing to put a link to the archive on his talk page, then the archiving process becomes defacto a way of scrubbing legitimate warnings. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He had a link to the archive, but it was under a misleading name, that implied he was simply the victim of misunderstanding.  He has renamed it to a literal explanation of what it was, though, since Merope talked to him...  And I must agree, the fake new message template annoys me too.--Vercalos 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup, the incident I mentioned was a bit different.  The user made a nonsense edit.  The edit was reverted & he was warned.  He promptly deleted the warning, so I reverted the deletion & sent him a new warning to not remove talk page warnings.  He did some quick reading about archiving and selectively archived all warnings and other critical comments -- but neglected to add a link to the archive page, effectively hiding it.  I advised him that this was contrary to the spirit of the rules, and he demonstrated a masterful command of wikilawyering, demanding that I point out specifically where in the rules it said he had to maintain a permanent link.  At that point, I decided I had better things to do with my life, so I dropped it in frustration. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict from 2 edits ago) Warnings less than a day old are generally still actionable/relevant, meaning that admins will take them into account when reviewing whether and for how long to block. Also, the warning that Vercalos mentions is also part of a discussion barely a couple hours old. Selectively archiving warnings should be disallowed. All or none to avoid misrepresenting the history. And of course it must be prominently, umambiguously linked from the main talk page to be considered an archive. TransUtopian 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm fine with anyone archiving warning after about a week, if they are otherwise a legitimate editor, and practice a standard archiving solution.  If they are not a legitimate editor or a shared ip editor, then leave them up. — xaosflux Talk 00:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems to me that if they archived it under the label "Warnings" it should be OK. --WikiSlasher 07:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that users should be permitted to archive or even delete anything on their talk page.  If they are archiving or deleting they've obviously read the warning.  I would use verbose edit summaries to make sure the warning stays in their history.  Just my 2 cents.  L0b0t 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving warnings 

message: Big thank you to the admins who regularly clean out this stuff. I'm sure you mostly get grief for doing this, so on behalf of the usually silent majority, Dweller says "ta". --Dweller 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank admins working on XfD, because I'm much rather spend my time here then there. :) The whole process is called community dynamics... NCurse  work 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you to the admins 

message: Is this the place to get persistent spammers blocked after their last warning (warned with  ) or do I take it to WP:ANI? Thanks, --A. B. 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can take them here.  Basically, any persistent infractions of these types of vandalism go here.  -- Merope 19:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --A. B. 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we report spammers for blocking? 

message: :I just put  on  User talk:Mtwolf because of this: . The user quickly deleted the bv template  from his/her talk page. I'd also like to prod the associated image. Some guidance would be sincerely appreciated:
:# Did I choose the correct template?
:#What if anything do I do when people delete it from their user page?
:#How do I prod an image?
:Thanks--Ling.Nut 22:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry just add  and replace the warning. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question and help needed 

message: I thought I'd take a stab helping here, and I went through some of the current requests just now, but didn't block anyone because it seemed to me that the user either gave a level4 right out of the gate and/or the vandal hadn't edited again after last warning. Was I right not to block? And if that's the case, do I just remove the report so other admins don't waste their time? Thanks a bunch! --plange 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases, a  is warranted; it depends on the type of vandalism. If in your judgment, it wasn't severe enough, then there's no problem. Also, not blocking a vandal after he/she stopped vandalizing is perfectly ok; the purpose of warnings isn't to cover your ass when blocking, but rather to make the vandal stop. If the vandal stops, and you didn't have to block, then mission accomplished. Titoxd(?!?) 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in the cases where blocking isn't warranted, do we remove the request from this page? --plange 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Alphachimp 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  It depends. If the vandal stopped 20 hours ago, yes; if the vandal hasn't vandalized in 5 minutes, leave it there. There's no general rule for delisting AFAIK, but usually two hours would suffice. If an editor hasn't been warned, though, just delist it outright. Titoxd(?!?) 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What Tito said. And please do remove the reports you find don't warrant blocking. You can say something along "list agin if vandalism resumes" (or whatever is appropriate) in the edit summary so the reporting user won't be afraid to relist the same IP later. If you are really in doubt about whether to block or not, just leave that report listed and let someone else handle it. At least that's what I do ;-). "If in doubt, don't block", is a good rule of thumb. Shanes 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense-- I guess I was just thinking about the sequence as I thought they weren't supposed to be listed here to begin with if they hadn't vandalized at all after a test4 was given. I saw a case here where an editor gave a test4 and then reported them even though they didn't vandalize again after the test4.... sorry for all the questions, just don't want to mess up right out of the gate with my new admin status :-) --plange 03:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to reply-- above was written before Shanes reply (edit conflict) --plange 03:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New admin- would like to help here 

message: User talk:72.65.235.239 - I've recommended this user three times for a block. The latter two times reasons were given, "hasn't vandalized in two days" and most recently "hasn't vandalized in 30 minutes". How is not vandalizing in 30 minutes a valid reason not to block a user? All the user seems to be doing is taking a short break after being warned and then going right back to vandalism again. This account has virtually no useful contributions other that blatant anti-drug and alcohol vandalism. Is our stance now to keep slapping users with warnings and letting them continue to create more work for others, rather than blocking them outright? --Liface 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? Yesterday, I managed to report this guy, and he had not edited for six hours prior to my report (this may not be relevent, but he was a sock of another user). I would suggest asking the admin who gave you that response why he said that.  —Whomp  t/c 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll just relist it again if the account shows more vandalism and hope another admin handles the case. --Liface 03:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We're not the police. You're under arrest for the comparison... --Lord Deskana (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL... as a quick sidenote, Musical Linguist was kind enough to explain some of the inner workings of the administrator action cabal ;-) --Bobak 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: From WP:BLOCK "Admins are never obliged to place a block", "Blocks are preventive rather than punitive measures used to prevent damage to Wikipedia..." If an IP (which maybe dynamically assigned) isn't currently (recently) vandalising then a block is not preventing any damage, if it is dynamic or shared and someone else is impacted it is arguably doing damage. --pgk(talk) 19:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an ongoing problem. Many of the admins in the anti-vandal cabal are slow, to be polite, in blocking a user. That's one reason I rarely report anyone anymore.  It often seems futile.  Rlevse 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must not run into me very much. ;) Syrthiss 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should issue a new standard for blocking...? --KojiDude (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For your second point, how do you know it was the same person? An IP can be reallocated and reallocated. --pgk(talk) 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is PRECISELY why ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED on wiki. And as for the time delay, I've seen admins fail to block when they revandalize after a blatant or test4 was issued a mere 5 minutes previously. No wonder there are so many vandals on wiki.Rlevse 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well requiring accounts has been discussed numerous times and downside deemed to outweigh the upside. Many anons aren't vandals, someone reading might see a typo (say) and fix it, have to go through account creation etc. and they quite likely won't bother. Remember the project is about building an encyclopaedia not eliminating vandalism. (The latter of course helps the former but it shouldn't be at the cost of the former.) However that is not something we can decide here, bring it up on WP:VP if you want to drag that up again. I was responding to an instance concerning several months between last warning and vandalism. Did you ask the admin to clarify why they didn't feel a block was necessary when someone got warned with test4 and then carried on vandalising within 5 minutes of getting that warning? --pgk(talk) 09:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that at least shared IPs should be prevented from editing without accounts.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is that we still don't have a "users from this IP address must be registered" capability in the software.  There are many occasions when the collateral damage from an IP block is such that it's not feasible.  This is an ongoing problem with AOL, and an intermittent problem with educational institutions.  If we had a "block anons only" option, blocking would be easier on everyone.  It's been discussed, but not implemented. --John Nagle 07:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, you may wish to comment on a proposal I have drawn up, which will allow bureaucrats to flag shared IPs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Have we gone soft?

message: this page is being repeatedly vandalized. i'm really not too good at wikipedia code, and i have bad wrists so i can't really afford to type it all out or spend the time necessary to learn it. if an administrator could lock that page out to new members and unregistered members, it would be much appreciated. i am a member of TFN, and i care about the page. ip address is:  there may be other addresses involved as well. Quietmind 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protected, but you ought to request it in the future at WP:RFPP. Alphachimp 04:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Vandalism

message: The 2006 World Series page has been continually vandalized over the past few hours by User:66.79.167.173 among others. The vandalism has consisted usually of blanking out the entire page, and adding in some offensive message to the editor.
:This talk page is the wrong place for such a request. That said, it's a current event, so we can expect a certain higher level of vandalism. Alphachimp 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 World Series 

message: Sometimes I see an editor attempt to report a username violation on AN or ANI or elsewhere. I'm not referring to borderline username restrictions that would lead to "please change your name," but obviously unacceptable usernames (obscene, racist, "Wheels," etc.) that are due to be indef blocked on sight. The typical response on AN or ANI is that this sort of thing should be brought here to AIV, but there is nothing on the AIV instructions suggesting that this type of report would be welcome here. I'm not raising this because of some theoretical need for the instructions to be perfect, but because I think editors trying to report a problem may become discouraged if they are told to post a report here and then they find that doing so is inconsistent with the instructions atop the page (since there aren't going to be four warnings, etc.). Thoughts? Newyorkbrad 19:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps another subpage to WP:AN. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AN/U or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Usernames Agathoclea 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Username block requests are successfully reported here all the time. I see no problem with bringing them to AIV – they are generally no-brainer decisions, after all, that are probably overkill for other places. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the reports belong here. The last thing anyone needs is another noticeboard. My point is that where it's generally agreed that a given type of report belongs here, the instructions at the top of the page might profitably say so. I'm not an admin but if the admins who are regulars on this page agree, I can try drafting a couple of lines to add to the instructions. Newyorkbrad 05:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification/expansion of instructions re "username" issues 

message: I was under the impression that the bots were programmed not to report a vandal to the page if the vandal was already listed by Anti-Vandal Bot seems to be doing it. What am I mistaken about? JoshuaZ 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot reporting behavior 

message: The user name User:Do you like my boobies!has been created, from a prior posting to this board it is my understanding that this should be reported here so it can be blocked. TheRanger 02:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Blocked. In the future, just post on the WP:AIV page. Alphachimp 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable user name

message: I've been seeing a lot more of that lately; is there anything that should be done about it? Anchoress 16:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: slap a template:test-self on their talk pages? Borisblue 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, that's useful, thanks. Anchoress 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure to revert it anyway. Sometimes an editor will "correct" only some of his vandalism. Alphachimp 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors who add then remove their own vandalism 

message: It may not happen very often, but on the Balboa Academy page,  and an anon user were tag-team vandalising on several occasions, and as a result (Admins reverting only to the most recent username edit), vandalism went unreverted a couple of times (all fixed eventually). Just a heads up. Anchoress 18:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missed tag-team vandalism 

message: I realize the admins tending this are overwhelmed.  But a few times I reported someone because the blocking admin did not leave a "vandal now blocked" message on the vandal's userpage.  I now know to check the block log first, but sometimes I forget.  I suppose the best method would be to have a process that combines blocking with a template being automatically placed on the user's talk page.  But unless and until that can be done, I suggest we:
1. Add "check to see if user is already blocked - here's how you do that" to the "what to do before reporting here" instructions. 
2. Remember to, if at all possible, leave the "blocked" notice on the talk page when the block is set. 
Thanks! --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea! --WikiSlasher 07:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding duplicate reports 

message: User Dillyman has posted nonsense on the page for Horeca, I have reverted the page but am unsure as to what the next step is. Clausewitz01
:The next step is to post a warning on the user's talk page about that how they're edits have been removed and not post nonsense to Wikipedia. If they've vandalised after receiving a final warning, you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --WikiSlasher 07:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horeca 

message: :Having a poll here, it is about time that we institue a 1 strike policy for repeat offending sharedips, 1 vandal edit, and a 24 range block, 2 and they earn themselves a 48 hour ban, and so on, could be the solution to our AOL problem. All in favor --Heliac 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First strike capability 

message: #Heliac 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support 

message: #Oppose No way. A "first strike policy" deprives sysops of the ability to make rational decisions about the potential impact of their blocks. Preventing account creation holds back thousands of good edits. We don't block AOL, because, amongst the vandalism, there are good contributions. The majority of our long-term shared IP blocks do not block logged in users, and many allow account registration. In short, such a policy is both ridiculous and onerous. Alphachimp 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose 

message: # Voting is evil etc. etc. This should be discussed if anything, but I doubt it's worth the effort. Admins have an amount of discretion anyway so if it was an issue and admin could block something fairly quickly anyway. We have certain "norms" regarding placing of warnings etc. but they are in no way binding, someone can vandalise once and be blocked instantly others may vandalise more with all the appropriate warnings and an admin may still choose not to block them. Admins are not automatons, they are expected to look at a situation and use discretion, not just say "rules is rules". This "policy" would achieve nothing, if there was an appetite to more generally block with less warnings admins can do so now within the bounds of the blocking policy (though they may find themselves under closer community scrutiny). Proposing policy is not a way to get admins to do your bidding, even if you could get 500 people to support this policy you couldn't enforce that admins have to... --pgk 07:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: Can you help me to determine if these last edits in White people are vandalism? They keep changing cited metarial with uncited metarial. And then, one person added stuff which he was explained that it doesnt mean what he thinks it means. See  and  Thulean 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: Another one. I can not believe quoting Oxford English Dictionary is seen as POV pushing.
dif: 
Not to mention he put a whole bunch of uncited meterial back there again and called this all a minor edit. Thulean 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism again?

message: I just recently reported an incident of vandalism which had been the first edit from a given IP address since it received a final warning given out five days ago. The reason given for removing the address from the list was no warning in the past five days. Could someone please explain how the policy applies here. I thought that, considering that this was the first edit from that address since it received the final warning, that the final warning would still be in effect. Where was I wrong? Badbilltucker 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IP addresses are often assigned to different users. It's entirely possible that that user wasn't the user which received the original warning. Giving another final warning before reporting is good practice, typically, just to give them a chance to stop and contribute to the encyclopedia. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is true, there are also many IP addresses which are static. So if all the edits over several days are vandalism, I think we should block the address for a long time. Even if an address is shared, there may be only one person among those using it who is editing and he may be a vandal. JRSpriggs 08:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether I agree with you or not, blocking policy ultimately dictates me action. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally think that one should never block IP addresses indefinitely, and so I will tend to give harsh blocks to repeat offenders (6+ months for some bad vandals). The guy you blocked was only blocked once before, and I felt you were a bit harsh on the guy. I'm tweaking the block to one week. That okay with you? Nishkid64 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Recently on the anime article, these two users (who could be the same person) added a website used for illegal downloading to the external link section. User:Finite and I have explained why the site shouldn't be there, and yet they continue. What should I tell them? Is there a  that I can use in case this happns again? Or should I just type a warning by hand? // Sasuke-kun27 16:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. They seem to have stopped for now. If they start acting up again, I'll deal with them myself. // Sasuke-kun27 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Xeonxl and User:82.29.130.171 

message: While I do understand that this user only vandalizes once every few days, the vandalism is consistent. The IP address (User:218.188.3.113) has been warned 10 times in the past year (including 5 times this past month). Moreover  this individual has been blocked 11 times in the past year. The policy regarding IP addresses is quite vague, but I feel that a blocked needs to be instituted to stop this IP from vandalizing in the future. Andrew4010 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For convenience . I agree. JRSpriggs 08:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked the user for a month. This user only vandalizes. There's no point in not blocking a user just because they edit infrequently. If all the edits are vandalism, then they shall be dealt with consequences. Nishkid64 18:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User: 218.188.3.113 

message: Somebody wake up and block 142.227.139.32!!!!
:As of 7:59, 24 November 2006, this IP has been blocked. Andrew4010 18:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, please report to WP:AIV for block requests. Nishkid64 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he was reported already..  I think a user got impatient with reverting edits.--Vercalos 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my bad then. Nishkid64 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WAKE UP

message: This address -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:142.240.200.10 -- has half a page of warnings, including five (!) "last warnings."  That user must really consider the admins chumps -- he has even vandalized this page in the past.1  Yet he has received two more "last warnings" since then.  How many does he get?  Laszlo Panaflex 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but see, whereas me warning you a lot of times at User talk:Laszlo Panaflex guarantees that you'll get the message, warning an IP user doesn't guarantee that they'll get it.  I use the IP now but in several hours, someone else is.  So the reason we just can't block it indefinitely is because others will need to use it and possibly use it productively.  As you'll see, the IP in question has many blocks on it, the most recent being a month long.  It's not because our policy has "no bite" as you phrased it on the talk page, it's because we try to minimize colateral damage.  Metros232 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Metros. However, I'm going to elevate this issue to the next level and file an Abuse Report with this IP. Hopefully we can accomplish something more productive this way. For future reference, this case can be found here.  Andrew4010 04:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many "last warnings" does someone get? 

message: This editor, using two separate usernames, has been reverting my edits in a trolling fashion on both the Carrie Fisher and Harry Connick pages. The issue has been over what qualifies as "Jewish-American". This is not merely a content dispute: his "evidence" that they should be considered "Jewish American" includes a bogus reference link re. Harry Connick (see User_talk:J.R._Hercules). Also, check out the personal attacks this user has left on my talk page. I left a couple of warning templates on {both} his pages, but I'm not sure how to proceed beyond that, especially given that this is an unregistered editor I'm dealing with. J.R. Hercules 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey this is nonsense! I read the page Wikipedia:Vandalism which he sent me and obviously this has nothing to do with that. As for personal attacks, he has constantly called me a vandal even though I've never vandalized anything! And he keeps removing information even though I've given him sources on his talk page. Instead of replying he called me a vandal again. Berry2466 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and reviewed all of your edits and have found no apparent vandalism. In the future, if you are being warned for no apparent reason, try to discuss it with the person that has warned you. Also, this is not the right page to report vandalism. Finally, try to avoid using two different names with editing; sticking to one is best. You can seek arbitration if necessary. -- Andrew4010 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Berry2466]] and [[User:Berry246]] (same individual)

message: From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-11-27/Technology report:
:It is also now possible to undo edits other than the last one, provided that no intermediate changes conflict with the edit to be undone. The interface used is more akin to "manual revert" than rollback: on diff pages, an "undo" link should appear next to the "edit" link on the right-hand revision. When this link is clicked, the software will attempt to undo the change while preserving any changes since then, and will add the result to the edit box to be reviewed or saved. (Andrew Garrett, r17935–r17938, bug 6925)
There is a new button labelled "(undo)" which appears on the right under the edit summary when you look at the diff in a vandal's contributions. This allows you to remove a change without disturbing subsequent changes to the same page. I just found out about it. Have not had an occassion to try it yet. JRSpriggs 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: neato! Borisblue 10:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "undo" function 

message: I'm not an admin and there's a lot of techy and process stuff about Wikipedia I don't know. One thing I do know is that I spend a lot of time patching up vandalism and of late seem to have "specialised" in Anon IP vandals.
Much of the time, these turn out to be schools or colleges and admins are reluctant to give lengthy blocks. This is completely understandable, but when there's a persistent problem, what is to be lost from blocking anon activity only from that IP? It means the vandal has to go through the bother of registering, reregistering and reregistering again each time he gets blocked, while useful edits can still be made from "proper" accounts.
Given my opening comments, it's likely that I've missed a good reason not to, but can't admins seeing a school with masses of vandal history and blocks impose lengthy or indefinite anon only blocks, to save people like me from a lot of repeat work? --Dweller 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it depends on the admin. Some of us do not hesitate to issue long term blocks for educational IPs Alphachimp 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism from School IPs  

message: Block this IP immediately. He received a Final vandalism warning, yet he vandalized a user's talk page a few hours ago. I have reverted his edits, and I am reporting him/her here to be blocked ASAP. Thank you. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong page. Read the talk page headers. --Deskana talk 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block [[User talk:165.21.155.17|165.21.155.17]] 

message: The rules say vandals can only be reported here if:
-They have vandalized recently (past 24 hours), and since the last warning (test3 or test4). 
-The vandal has received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., within the previous week).
But what if a vandal only vandalizes a page every 2 weeks or more, so that each time they do it, they will not have received a warning "within the previous week"? Is there no way to request a block for such a user, even if the vandalism is very obvious and they keep doing it again and again? Hypnosifl 08:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's blatant and it's the whole of their contributions (or quite close to it), then you might give it a shot and post it here. Otherwise, report it on WP:ANI. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's a logged in user and all they ever do is vandalise, then they can be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account. If it's an IP address, then you probably need to confirm it is the same person using the address each time (for example, do they always vandalise the same pages?) if we're going to do anything. --Tango 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any way to block periodic vandals? 

message: This is apperantly from Bishop Dwenger High School. I was reccomended by Meegs to put this on here. I'd say about 95 precent is very clear vandilism, by entering things like penises, and other rude entries. I was told they can't be permanitly blocked, but a long term could stop them. Thank you. --ASDFGHJKL 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in big writing at the top of this page not to report vandalism here. Please put it on the actual AIV page, not the talk page. Thanks! --Tango 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for a Long Term Block on [[User:168.102.135.9|168.102.135.9]]