Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 7

message: 66.211.134.194 (Talk) has just come off a 6-month block and has immediately started vandalising again. Should he/she immediately be reblocked, or should he/she get an 'Only Warning' message first? Or a full set of warnings? Stannered 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's probably not the same person you should assume that it was the first act of vandalism the person did. --WikiSlasher 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked the IP anon-only for 8 years.  In my view, school IPs like this that exhibit a pattern of incorrigible vandalism need to be blocked for very long periods.  This block will stop the vandals cold, and may (hopefully) help disassemble the vandalism culture there.  Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. 8 years... Maybe I missed something, but I don't see that in the block log. — Scientizzle 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird that it isn't showing up.  The user is definitely blocked: I just tried to re-enter the block and it says the user is already blocked, but the 6 month block from 10/31 has definitely expired by now.  Mangojuicetalk 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where to look. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: And my faith in the system is restored! Cheers, Stannered 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does the 8 year block not show up on the block log?  I see it shows up as a search, but only the 8 year shows up not the long history. Jeepday (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 8 years is a bit long, the IP will probably be reassigned by then. But on topic, this is not the first report of Block log funkyness, see this AN report. Prodego talk 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expired long-term block 

message: Even though this article has been semi-protected, it's still getting vandalized allot. Mostly by User:ECW500  ---SilentRAGE! 01:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to request that the semi-protection be upgraded, you can go to WP:RFPP, but I don't see a reason to at the moment, as the user only has two edits on that article. Just revert and warn. --Coredesat 01:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nahhh... you can do it. Not only do I have no clue how to warn somebody, but I'm too much of a lazy person to do it, even if I knew how. Plus, although I help edit here at Wikipedia, I'm not about to do the bitch-lackey work. :)  ---SilentRAGE! 05:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Hi. Am looking for advice, as these are unfamiliar waters. I wrote a comment on the discussion page of a category deletion review that is now ongoing. The admin, whose decision I differed with, moved my comment off the discussion page without my permission. While contining to input his contrary views on the page. He has not responded to my repeated requests to return my comment to the page. And he has RV'd another editor's attempt to do so. 
Is this the place that I should report this to gain some assistance?  And is there a name for his action, or for the primary policy that it violates?  Or a format to follow?
Thanks. Epeefleche 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further information:It appears that the discussion Epeefleche is referring to is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 3 and the editor that moved long comments to the talk page is Radiant!.  (Disclaimer: I'm not involved in this in any way--just adding details that were lacking) --Finngall talk 15:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice sought; how to proceed where commentator moves my comment off discussion pg without my permission 

message: I am killing myself finalising this but there is what looks like redirection vandalism is turning up. In theory both on the CD (which includes the WP redirection database) and on Wikipedia searches throw up redirected page titles to target. Thus if you search for Fool's Gold you get Pyrites. However, someone seems to think it funny to do things like this: William_III_of_poo so that search on "poo" goes to William III. Equally Zombie_Gerald_Ford means that "Zombie" goes to Gerard Ford. I wondered if a bunch of kids are wetting themselves over how funny it is but most of them seem to be done by relatively established editors (generally some time ago). Is there any legit reason why these pages might exist or could we search the redirect database for bad words and delete the lot? --BozMo talk 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both redirects have been deleted by me as nonsense.  JoJan 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection Vandalism 

message: Greetings,
At this particular moment I'd like to thank all the editors here who spend a portion of their time not only editing and contributing to Wikipedia, but maintaining the integrity of its content while keeping an ever-watchful eye on people who would seek to poison all that we have worked hard to create. 
However, wtih great sadness, we have partly failed in the construction of a system that works for the benefit of our work. I say 'partly' for a great deal is and can be accomplished here at the WP:AIV. I have come to the WP:AIV with many griefs about vandals. When I feel powerless and frustrated in a situation, I reach out for help, and I've always had the fortune of being caught by an administrator. 
This time I came across a situation I have dealt with many times in the past but where an interpretation of the policy led to no action. My report was removed and under WP:AIV - Administrators 2. I was supposed to be informed that my report had been removed with out action. This was not the case and I came back after finding my report gone and a brief explanation in the history, "rm 208.20.156.194. no recent activity".
Please note this is not a shared IP ClearSKY. This individual user in the last 24 hours had made 16 edits all indentified as vandalism. 11 edits of vandalism were made on May 9th to which the user received 3 tiers of warnings, and then on May 10 another 5 edits. 8-10 hours later I discovered vandalism by this user, reverted his changed, and reported my findings. 
The said reaction was WP:AIV - Editors 1. "The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances."
The word now had been taken literally to a degree and most likely defined by the administrator as with in the hour. However, I also think now could be interpreted as today or on-going. However, the parameters of 'now' is clarified by WP:BLOCK. We'll get to that later.
There was also the matter of the rider in that policy, except under unusual circumstances, which leaves that policy to be void at the discretion of the administrator at the time. Perhaps this gives the administrator a human element to respond in ways that policies cannot always be effective.
I was referred to WP:BLOCK - "Blocking is the method by which administrators may prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". That is the first line in the policy, but then again, the policy is several pages long. I thought it to be quite obvious that vandalism, warning, more vandalism, and more warnings, would ultimately lead to more vandalism by this user and possibly prevent further damage and disruption. Afterall, we do 6 month blocks for instances were a pattern has been reliable enough to note further 24 blocks will not protect the encyclopedia.
As I read further down the page for WP:BLOCK I come across Disruption:
A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:
* persistent vandalism;
* edit warring or revert warring;
As stated on the top of every notice board it lists other various boards to make sure you're in the right place:  "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV". Persistent negates the concept of 'now'. It refers to a repeated process and over a length of time. All other uses of persistent in a present tense are modified leaving the definition clearly defined and both apply. The IP in question was one edit away from the WP:3RR and continuously made all his/her edits of the same nature.
How can we as a community better define or better the human element of understanding? When does punitive become protection? When a user continues to vandalize and ignores warnings, are you protecting the encyclopedia by refusing to punish him? Whenever you block or semi-protect an article you're making an action that is protective and also punitive. The act of removing the privledges of a person is punitive and where we've separated the two, you cannot. The only instance where punitive stands alone is when a user who no longer violates the rules of Wikipedia is blocked. However, no reasonable person would say that in this case enough time has gone by to say, this user has not edited in the last 10 hours and thus no longer violates policies. They'll only wake up the next day to find articles vandalised and nothing to be done since they weren't 'caught in the act'. Do we leave unchanged a policy that does not work entirely? This isn't a solution or the way I want things to be done, but its a start, and every change starts somewhere. It all depends on who was part of it. Mkdwtalk 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the dark 

message: Chrislk02 suggested this subject be brought up on this talk page instead of his talk page.  It relates directly to  above, but that thread has no posts in the last 5 days and is a little stale.
It appears many admins on AIV interpret WP:BLOCK to mean that only IP’s vandalizing "as we speak" will be blocked, and that a final warning to an IP issued more than 12-24 hours ago has more or less expired, and either a whole new set of warnings (or at least a new final warning every day) is needed, on the assumption that this is a brand new vandal that needs to be given the benefit of the doubt.
I really do understand the concept of collateral damage, but I also daily run across IP’s with nothing but occasional vandal edits, a dozen or so per week, for the last month, and strings of “final warnings”, one after the other, on their talk page.  This strains WP:AGF past the breaking point, doesn’t it?  The one I ran across today, for example, is not nearly the worst I’ve seen, but has the advantage of being right at my fingertips: 209.3.145.3.
In anticipation of another response, I understand blocks are not meant to be punitive, and I’m not proposing that change.  But surely a block can be instructive?  Something along the lines of "There are consequences for your behavior".  If nothing else, a slow-motion block like I’m proposing is still preventative, it’s just preventing a dozen vandal edits a week instead of per day.
Is it reasonable to propose that we block IP’s who are not vandalizing “right-this-very-second”, but who have a final warning less than X days old (I propose X = 7) AND (with nothing but vandalism edits for the last Y edits (I propose Y = 10), OR who have nothing but vandalism edits in the last Z days (I propose Z = 14))?
X, Y, and Z don’t even need to be official written in stone, and in fact probably shouldn’t be.  It could be up to the admin’s discretion, just as long as it is generally agreed that they aren’t zero, infinity, and infinity, respectively.
Obviously the block wouldn't be long term at first, but would hopefully get the vandals' attention.
Collateral damage would not be zero, but would be very, very small.  It's only fair to bring up that the IP mentioned above had what appeared to be one legitimate edit on, I think, March 8th.  But for IP's like this, don't we also have to balance the potential lost legit edit with the known avoided vandalism, and the potential lost fed-up long term editor like Curtis above?  I'm not sure which one it is, but one of the block templates I’ve seen is worded pretty gently, and wouldn’t chase away many of the legit anon editors who happen to try to make their first edit in a vandal den.
I’m about to go home, where my internet service has broken down, but I hope this isn’t beating a dead horse and that there's some feedback when I come back tomorrow morning. --barneca (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the most legitimate way of dealing with "slow motion vandals" or "serial vandals" is that the length of time between vandalism events should be used as the basis for determining both whether their attacks are "recent" enough and the length of a block.  Of course, that would have be a rough guess, but someone who vandalizes twice a week on average should get a good 4-7 day block in hopes of stopping their next attempt, and an attack 2-3 days after a final warning should be recognized as their most "recent". Geeman 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better idea than mine. --barneca (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest a different approach to slow motion vandals 

message: If I report vandalism, I understand that I should sign said report.  I forgot to.  I re-report vandalism with a sign and that is reverted.  Anyone know why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you should be asking , judging from this diff and this diff. From their first edit summary, it sounds like they're saying the incident happened too long ago to block over, but asking them directly may get you a more accurate answer. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting Vandalism 

message: How long does it take for intervention to take place for an anonymous vandal who is on a defacing spree? An anonymous user who has received the proper set of warnings has turned on those who placed the notices in the first place! --Aarktica 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is, it depends. If they need to be blocked it can take between thirty seconds and twenty minutes, depending on who's around and how big the queue is. If it's not clear they need to be blocked it can take between thirty seconds and two hours to realise this. Sometimes it can take less than thirty seconds, but an admin usually has to check the warnings, who uses the IP, what previous edits they have made, decide whether to block, and then perform the block.  I think you experienced about four minutes - not bad really. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to almost always have a good response time. Jmlk17 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn-around time. 

message: Hi folks. This morning I noticed that User:Treasureisland4067 vandalised the St Edmund Hall, Oxford article so I reverted the page and left a warning on his/her user talk page using one of the lower-level templates from WP:CUV. A couple of hours later, the user blanked their talk page and removed the warning. Now I know WP is somewhat touchy about blanking talk pages (even user ones) and prefers archiving instead and I'm concerned that the user in question is attempting to gloss over their vandalism. Should I take any further action (i.e. restore the warning and/or add another warning about page-blanking) or should I escalate this to an admin or should I just let it slide for now? Thanks AulaTPN 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an editor blanks warnings, it's not a big deal. I warned  for other vandalism & restored your previous one for posterity. As it is, since every warning is available through the history, it's not necessary to restore blanked warnings. You certainly shouldn't add additional warnings for this kind of thing...In the case of this editor, any future acts of vandalism should receive a level 3 or 4 warning, with a possible vandal-only account block after that. If this editor does not perform any more vandalism (and possibly even becomes a productive editor), there's no need to keep a scarlet letter on the editor's user talk. — Scientizzle 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, that's what I'd hoped. Thanks for your help! AulaTPN 07:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice 

message: Is there a series of templates for patent-nonsense articles? Realpp48 has created — and re-created — multiple patent nonsense articles.
Are warnings available for this sort of vandalism? --Aarktica 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , , . See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for more options, too. — Scientizzle 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me. Thank you very much. Aarktica 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template series for warning against creating nonsense articles. 

message: I reported a user for blocking. Why wasn't any action taken on him? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another user removed him because it appeared to be over a content dispute, not vandalism. AIV is for reporting vandals, not simply for users you feel are difficult. (And being bold is one of our guiding principles; "insubordination" is not a valid reason to block.) Krimpet (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User reported: NE2 

message: I have warned a user that has been warned multiple times because he/she were makingtons of nonsense edits but I don't know how to report them their user name is User:Tedgxke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scti (talk • contribs) 
:There are instructions for reporting on the main page. It is quite easy. This user was indefinitely blocked on May 2, so there is no need to report him. Rettetast 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you report users? 

message: I spent a minute writing in my entry and also fixed another entry. By the time I put it in there had been a change; I had two more conflicts before I was able to shoehorn mine in (I imagine the other one, about a vandal at Morning glory, has been taken care of. What tool should I use to prevent this from happening? --Edwin Herdman 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing ;) There are always going to be edit conflicts at certain time of the day.  The two tools/scripters I know are Twinkle and VandalProof, both have functions for speedier reporting.  --Steve  (Stephen)  talk  23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: See the Guide to AIV where it mentions using the + button. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions, guys. Stephen: Mavis Beacon wasn't fun back in 1995 and while Mario Teaches Typing was fun in 1994 it isn't now...so I have a feeling that MBTT is going to be even worse today :D Unless they've updated it...anyway, I think the + solves my problem, thanks! --Edwin Herdman 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use VandalProof, and I still sometimes get hit with edit conflicts. Jmlk17 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving too fast for manual edits 

message: Since this page is very often attended by Administrators, and sometimes there are pages that needs to be protected from vandalism immideately, I wonder if we could add an emergency page protection section here as well to deal with immediate and repeated vandalism of one page. Anyone like to comment on this? --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the FRPP message board is sufficiently attended and see no reason to duplicate functionality.  --Selket Talk 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:RFPP is not attended as often as this, so pages could go on unprotected for 30 minutes and it could get vandalised really badly before an admin jumps in to protect the page (which would waste time for rc patrollers as well since there are vandals who just quickly jumps to another proxy or changes his/her ip to vandalise again). I just don't think WP:RFPP is suitable for emergency page protections. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Could someone please deal with user: Mumun 無文as he continues to vandalize the Regina Neighbourhoods page, specifically North Central. Help would be greatly appreciated.--207.81.56.49 00:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IP blocked for edit warring. – Steel 00:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism still continues at Regina Neighbourhoods 

message: I recently submitted this report:
 ongoing vandalism, 14 since last warning of block. I couldn't find a single non-vandalism edit by this IP. -- Adrian Lozano 12:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, only users that vandalise right here and now are blocked. This user hasn't edited since yesterday. And last warning issued to him was on 17 May, and was only level 2, whereas people should be blocked after vandalising past level 4 warnings. There is no point in blocking him/her now, because s/he is not vandalising. MaxSem 13:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for you answer. Basically that means that I (or anyone else) must wait for the next vandalism, if or when that happens, and report it within 12 hrs? I suppose a new warning on that user's talk page is in order then. -- Adrian Lozano 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And list empty refers to whether there's anything left listed on AIV, so admins can see it in their watchlist and know if they need to look at anything. Trebor 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that 12 hours later there could be a different human attached to the IP. (H) 13:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this not a block-candidate? 

message: A user recently left this message on my talk page:
Hallo.  I have got a huge problem.  Someone has redirected my user talk page to another page. 
It is a user called  User:Efstyle10 who has done this, and this user also edits under the name User talk:84.9.15.240.  Please revert all the odd edits they have done to my talkpage, and stop them from doing this.  Thankyou, in advance Breakfast100 12:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping out. I'm pretty new to this managerial side of Wikipedia. - 52 Pickup 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem i can't fix 

message: I know we must go to test4 before filing a request to block a user, but can we make this case an exception and to file a report after the 1st or 2nd instance of vandalism from him since he has been doing long-term abuse (since at least February perhaps much earlier) to Canadian (or I should non-Conservative Party) articles on politics with multiple sock IPs (I can count probably well in excess of over 100 to 200 IP addresses doing similar vandalism.--JForget 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's probably been blocked over a hundred times. As far as I'm concerned these can be insta-blocked, though you will usually find a new IP will arrive within seconds. They, again, will probably not even need warning... -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think all AOL addresses between 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 only appear to come from the headquarters, and this is probably not so useful to know (see ). However it is curious that each IP is 'clean' having never edited Wikipedia before. Then again there are so many IPs it's not really surprising. That said, see also: User:aolworker, AFAIK his only ever account, which I think is a coincidence. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely suspicious since the 172.xxx has vandalized multiple times, although, I think he is using it as a Sandbox.--JForget 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  172.xxx vandal 

message: I suggest that admins add a note indicating when they are researching a AIV complaint.  I started doing this after doing research and go to block an editor, only to find that somebody else beat me to it.  My guess is that we have all had this experience once in a while.
What I have been doing is to paste the following string into AIV immediately after a request:
::* Researching complaint against User:USER -- ~~~~
I then copy & paste the username or IP Address to replace the string "USER".  I will then copy and paste the string into the edit summary and hit save.  This tells other admins that I am working on that entry, and hopefully they will work on a different one.
When I'm done researching, if I block the user, I'm done because the bots clear the AIV entry.  However, if my decision is not to block, then I enter a note to the AIV request, and also use it for the edit summary.  A common one is:
::* No vandalism by User:USER after final warning -- ~~~~
I then copy and paste the following on the talk page of the person who made the request:
: -- ~~~~
I paste the username/IP address to replace "USER", and paste the message I added to AIV to replace the string "MESSAGE".  I may add some additional comments and suggestions on steps they may wish to take.
I then go back and delete the entry from AIV.  The edit history of AIV records what happened, and the note on the talk page allows the person who reported understand why the block didn't happen.  I will often include suggestions, such as reporting the incident to WP:SSP if they claimed the vandal was a sock puppet.
Any thoughts on this? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entries on the board often need split-second decision-making. If you need to think about it, then obviously it doesn't belong on the board. —Kurykh 05:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of newly arrived suspected sockpuppets it makes sense for an admin to research a little before acting, in which case I've seen notes like that are helpful. --Fire Star 火星 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a different matter, generally speaking. Most of the reports here are anons vandalizing, which requires checking, at most, the last three or four edits. For more complicated issues, yes, notes should be left, but those situations are rare. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Can someone please explain to me why school-owned IP address get blocked for six months rather than the usual 24 hours?  I've been only blocking schools for 2 hours, because by then the students who were causing the problems would have gone off to another class.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the case. The duration of blocks should be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. So if a school IP has been blocked several times previously, it would be better if it is blocked for such long periods of time. But usually school IPs are blocked for shorter times in their first blocks. —Anas talk? 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will block a school IP for up to six months if it has many prior blocks for vandalism.  Though its likely that each block may be the result of a different student who may never repeat, a history of vandalism and blocks indicates that the school is probably giving students unsupervised access to computers and/or is unable to control inappropriate student editing of Wikipedia in some way.  Blocking these IP addresses for longer periods protects Wikipedia from a significant source of vandalism, and if the block is anon-only, it will cause little harm.  Students wishing to edit constructively may still do so.  --Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) I typically go straight to 6 months when there's a history of vandalism on many dates. In some cases, I go even longer. Even with a very limited history, I will often block for as much as a month. If you look at the type of vandalism these accounts create, you'll notice a lot of it is of the form "Jeff W. is gay" and such... which to me suggests a culture of vandalism that should be stamped out by long blocks. Plus, in most instances there are no constructive edits at all from these IPs, so I don't think it's a big loss. Mangojuicetalk 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will typically block only if there has been an appropriate escalation of blocks, or even a previous 6 month block that may have expired recently.  I never block for 6 months for the first or 2nd block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Schools are usually soft blocked when the block is long, meaning the student can create an account at home or the local library and then use it at school. It is not that we are singling out schools, more we are singling out terminals with static IPs that are accessible to a large group of people. (H) 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: has recently been banned for repeatedly making spurious entries and links.  There is pettern of similar changes made bythe same editor using a range of IP addresses (see :Articles for deletion/The Clinger Winker and my comment to User talk:EdJogg for further details}. It nows seems that  is now continuing the same pattern of vandalism... Is there anything that administrators can be done to help put a stop to this?  Regards, Lynbarn 21:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that should be . I've blocked UnBlockBoy indefinitely. —tregoweth (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:StealBoy and his aliases 

message: Repeated vandalism of Green Goblin; has continued after warnings.--CyberGhostface 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A level4im warning was issued for this, way too strict/Assuming bad faith. It's more likely it's childish grafitti or a test. Evilclown93(talk) 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IP deliberately vandalized the article two times already, three if you count a similar edit by another IP. He also added "Adam Smith (aka pot noodle head, bombay badboy, smeeeethy) the kids fucked after one can! lolol" after I reverted his edits and gave him the warning. Its not like someone adding a "tttt" to the bottom of the page, its deliberate vandalism. There's assuming bad faith and then there's common sense. I'm not going to put on kid gloves and go "Welcome to wikipedia!" to someone who deliberately vandalizes an encyclopedia.--CyberGhostface 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also feel uncomfortable with blocking. In my views, 4im is for the worst cases of vandalism. A level 2 or 3 warning would have been more suited in my opinion. If it strikes again, a level4 would than be warranted. The second vandalism is not after, the user didn't have the time to see your warning before striking again. -- lucasbfr talk 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't get why we're so lenient on vandals. When I was trying to convince my dad that all the horror stories about how Wikipedia can't be trusted are false, and that vandals are reverted, he wanted to know if they're banned outright. I told him they're given a series of warnings before being punished, which he thought was ridicilous. I mean I've had overzealous admins block me because of not properly labeling images, and this guy is saying "the kids fuced after one can! lolol!" and I'm accused of having bad faith for requesting he get punished.--CyberGhostface 20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you can try to change the policy, but AIV isn't the correct place to do so. --Evilclown93(talk) 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where should I go then? (I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know where these are discussed)--CyberGhostface 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Think of it this way: when I started out, I participated in an AfD discussion as an IP user. If somebody had reverted this and blocked me as a meatpuppet, do you think I'd stick around? Do you think I'd stay long enough to become an admin? Do you think I'd stick around long enough to revert tens of thousands of vandal edits? I've seen test1 convert total jackasses into good users, once they realize there are real people cleaning up after them. There are cases where we can and should block on sight, but they're ultimately pretty rare. Just my take. We should probably move this to talk, if it gets much longer. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, I guess I'll drop it. He hasn't vandalized after I reported him so I guess I'll let it go. Sorry for overreacting.--CyberGhostface 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I sympathize with your frustration. I do think there are times when we're too harsh, but there's also plenty of times when we assume a little too much good faith. As long as we have the countless supply of users we do, it's not likely the disparity will ever be entirely resolved, but we can always try to keep even-handed, as individuals. If you did want to go for change, I suppose the village pump or vandalism policy page might be good places -- or, just stay involved with the project, make your mark, and bring about change through your interactions with other users. A lot of blocking policy and such are determined by "general practice," which of course we can all change over time. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  from project page 

message: Is there a warning template against putting yourself into notable people from... sections on various place articles? 
I suspect an IP editor 81.96.71.55 is doing this for self-promotion reasons (search Google for Steve Oliver the pod, then see cached wikipedia article, now deleted) or . Regards, Lynbarn 12:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I peeked at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and think you might want to try  or some higher level if the guy escalates.  Good luck!  --KNHaw (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks - that seemed to work! Lynbarn 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  warning template 

message: Quick question: Can I report IP Addresses as persistent vandals? I'm not sure. And also is it possible to block them? Geosultan4 03:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they can get blocked, and yes you can report them here. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 03:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a bunch. Geosultan4 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to remember, however, that one IP address does not always map to one distinct user. In some cases, entire libraries, computer labs, universities, or even entire countries are largely represented by one widely shared address -- in such cases, we should be careful to weigh the pros and cons of various solutions to problems. On the other hand, some IPs are dynamic, shifting each time the user connects to the internet. There's a good deal of limbo in dealing with IPs, that's different from usernames. Sometimes IPs can be dealt with quite heavily, other times they may seem to get only a slap on the wrist. When in doubt, you can always report it to get an admin to have a look, though. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happened like that on my end: my university's IP was blocked for 6 months due to vandals hanging out in the library!  Jmlk17 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Adresses 

message: I'm just curious, how is one supposed to go about it when a user makes a bad report?  Not in the sense that the user they reported does not need to be blocked, but they don't follow the guidelines given on how to report.  I've seen many reports where it is just a vandal's username or IP, and it not even commented on, signed, etc.  Maybe I'm just a stickler for "paperwork", or what is to be done? Jmlk17 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a polite note on their talk page hopefully would fix it. After that... well, I'd hate to block someone for repeatedly making malformed reports, but it is disruptive... let's just stick with firm-yet-friendly notes. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, I wasn't implying we should block someone for malformed reporting :).  I was just curious of the other issue of if we should A. correct the report or B. just go ahead and research/block as needed the offending vandal being report? Jmlk17 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't obvious vandalism they shouldn't be here, so research shouldn't be needed. Normally I just remove them with a note in the edit summary as to why. If someone is persistently adding bad reports (unwarned, under warned etc) I leave them a note on their talk page. ViridaeTalk 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks! Jmlk17 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Reports 

message: I left the following on the project page, but evidently it is not formatted correctly, and as a result it seems to have been cleared by a bot without any resolution. Please can someone take a look and advise? Do I need to leave IPvandal templates for each of these IP addresses?
===Jon Kennedy===
IP user making repeated defamatory edits about musician Jon Kennedy. Seems to be a vendetta, and a number of articles that mention the artist's name have been vandalised claiming the artist is racist amongst other things. The fact that all of the vandalism is in the same vein suggests it is a single user, although several IP addresses are used.
2 periods of Protection (17th May and 6th July) on the artist article, and a temp blocking on one of the IP addresses have failed to put a stop to the vandalism. The user has received several warnings, including a full set on the talk page of the IP that was temp blocked.
Here's a quick overview of the vandalism activity with this sentiment. Some are related to the artist, others appear to be random pages.
* Jon Kennedy by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.129.142.202 (4th May), 86.153.142.101 (7th May), 86.129.134.78 (9th May), 86.129.142.128 (28th June), 86.151.44.168 (29th June), 86.149.161.127 (3rd July), 86.157.119.70 (3rd July), 86.142.29.155 (5th July), 81.152.202.49 (6th July), 86.157.118.219 (6th July), 86.129.130.74 (10th July), 86.129.139.82 (16th July), 86.129.147.220 (17th July)
* Talk:Jon Kennedy by 86.129.145.2 (8th July), and claim of innoncence by 86.157.119.65 (8th July), 86.149.160.166 (13th July)
* John Kennedy (disambiguation)  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
* Category:Jon Kennedy albums  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April)
* John Kennedy (disc jockey) by 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th & 30th April)
* Grand Central Records  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.130.45  (11th May), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
* Grand Central Translation by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
* Grand Central Vol. 2 by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Grand Central Vol. 3 by 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
* Kava Kava by 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.142.128 (28th June), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
* One Offs... Remixes & B-Sides by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Take My Drum to England  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
* Tru Thoughts  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April)
* Useless Wooden Toys  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.157.119.65 (8th July)
* We're Just Waiting for You Now by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April)
* Racism by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
* Altona, Manitoba by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Leiosauridae by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Ryde Pier Head railway station by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Comments on Wikipedia:Editor review/Magnus animum2 (since removed) by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* User talk:Lights by 86.153.142.101 (7th May)
* User talk:SJP by 86.129.142.128 (28th June)
See also:
* User talk:86.153.142.101
* User talk:86.129.142.128
Other articles vandalised by these IPs include:
Ross Errilly Friary, Bernard Manning , Jim Davidson
When I initially reported this asking for the artist article to be protected, I was not aware of the extent of the vandalism.
Can a range of IPs be blocked, or a multiple related articles be protected? If not, is there another strategy to stop this nonsense? Gram123 13:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your efforts in detailing this problem.  As for blocking the range of IPs, I think that is not feasible because the range belongs to a major UK ISP and the IP addresses are likely rotated among multiple users.  I have semi-protected the Jon Kennedy article, which has been the main target of the vandalism.  For the remaining articles, the level of vandalism is relatively low, and I will watchlist them and revert when necessary.  Hopefully others can help out by watchlisting those articles too.  If the problem persists, a report at Wikipedia:Long term abuse may help (maybe it's even worth doing now).  --Ed (Edgar181) 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several of these articles on my watchlist too, and if I see further vandalism, I will check the edit history of the user, though of course there are only a few edits under each different IP. I've added yesterday's vandalism to the list above, and will continue to do so. Cheers. Gram123 10:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Kennedy 

message: IP user making repeated defamatory edits about musician Jon Kennedy. Seems to be a vendetta, and a number of articles that mention the artist's name have been vandalised claiming the artist is racist amongst other things. The fact that all of the vandalism is in the same vein suggests it is a single user, although several IP addresses are used.
2 periods of Protection (17th May and 6th July) on the artist article, and a temp blocking on one of the IP addresses have failed to put a stop to the vandalism. The user has received several warnings, including a full set on the talk page of the IP that was temp blocked.
Here's a quick overview of the vandalism activity with this sentiment. Some are related to the artist, others appear to be random pages.
* Jon Kennedy by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.129.142.202 (4th May), 86.153.142.101 (7th May), 86.129.134.78 (9th May), 86.129.142.128 (28th June), 86.151.44.168 (29th June), 86.149.161.127 (3rd July), 86.157.119.70 (3rd July), 86.142.29.155 (5th July), 81.152.202.49 (6th July), 86.157.118.219 (6th July), 86.129.130.74 (10th July), 86.129.139.82 (16th July), 86.129.147.220 (17th July)
* Talk:Jon Kennedy by 86.129.145.2 (8th July), and claim of innoncence by 86.157.119.65 (8th July), 86.149.160.166 (13th July)
* John Kennedy (disambiguation)  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
* Category:Jon Kennedy albums  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April)
* John Kennedy (disc jockey) by 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th & 30th April)
* Grand Central Records  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.130.45  (11th May), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
* Grand Central Translation by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
* Grand Central Vol. 2 by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Grand Central Vol. 3 by 86.129.135.24 (29th April)
* Kava Kava by 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.142.128 (28th June), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
* One Offs... Remixes & B-Sides by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Take My Drum to England  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.124.222 (28th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
* Tru Thoughts  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April)
* Useless Wooden Toys  by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.135.24 (29th April), 86.157.119.65 (8th July)
* We're Just Waiting for You Now by 81.158.55.56 (13th April), 86.143.159.97 (17th April)
* Racism by 86.143.159.97 (17th April), 86.129.145.2 (8th July)
* Altona, Manitoba by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Leiosauridae by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Ryde Pier Head railway station by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* Comments on Wikipedia:Editor review/Magnus animum2 (since removed) by 86.129.124.222 (28th April)
* User talk:Lights by 86.153.142.101 (7th May)
* User talk:SJP by 86.129.142.128 (28th June)
See also:
* User talk:86.153.142.101
* User talk:86.129.142.128
Other articles vandalised by these IPs include:
Ross Errilly Friary, Bernard Manning , Jim Davidson
When I initially reported this asking for the artist article to be protected, I was not aware of the extent of the vandalism.
Can a range of IPs be blocked, or a multiple related articles be protected? If not, is there another strategy to stop this nonsense? Gram123 13:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your efforts in detailing this problem.  As for blocking the range of IPs, I think that is not feasible because the range belongs to a major UK ISP and the IP addresses are likely rotated among multiple users.  I have semi-protected the Jon Kennedy article, which has been the main target of the vandalism.  For the remaining articles, the level of vandalism is relatively low, and I will watchlist them and revert when necessary.  Hopefully others can help out by watchlisting those articles too.  If the problem persists, a report at Wikipedia:Long term abuse may help (maybe it's even worth doing now).  --Ed (Edgar181) 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several of these articles on my watchlist too, and if I see further vandalism, I will check the edit history of the user, though of course there are only a few edits under each different IP. I've added yesterday's vandalism to the list above, and will continue to do so. Cheers. Gram123 10:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon Kennedy

message: I made a template to notify users if they are reported here. It is located at User:SLSB/AIV and to use it type . SLSB   talk  22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like it at all! It's not needed, and too agressive. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've deleted it, we don't tell users they are about to get blocked, it makes the situation worse and they increase their spree in order to do as much damage as possible before being hit with a block. Take a look at WP:DENY, countless templates like this have just recently been deleted at TfD - we don't need another discussion on the matter for this template. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also increases the likelihood of them vandalising this page. GDonato (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also brought up here at WP:UW two weeks ago, where it was rejected. Khukri 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template