Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Header

message: The Testt2b template is now a particular case of the *-n templates. (It corresponds with Test2a-n) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

message: The alignment of the template to the left really makes all the alerts crowded IMO. It was really easy to follow with all the alerts below. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is to make the banner less wordy and giving it less width then. As it stands, at least for me and some people who check it every once on a while, it's annoyiing having to scroll just to check for new notices --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: also,, the main thing on the page are the alerts, not the big green banner that one reads once and nver pays attention anymore. --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked the old one better, the squished reports are harder to read and work with. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the side

message: According to concensus on the AIV talk page, I'm about to make some slight changes to make it clear that "username is a blatant violation of policey" is not good enough when report to AIV. If there are any problems with this change then please AGF and revert it, but keep in mind that I've had no objections to this on the AIV talk page. SGGH 10:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concensus on the AIV talk page

message: I'm wondering about the bit in the header where it says to administrators: "If users make an invalid report, consider letting them know using template ." I think there are cases where it is appropriate to report vandalism immediately without giving a warning — for example if the new vandal account or IP is an obvious sockpuppet of one that was blocked a few minutes before for exactly the same vandalism, or if the vandalism is particularly egregious. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions that a brand new account vandalises Jimbo's user page, and is blocked immediately, without warning. The kind of vandal is on a completely different level from the kind that just inserts "Hi John" into an article, and might even self-revert after seeing that the edit really did work. 
I'd like to reword it to say something like "If users fail to give appropriate warning before reporting, consider letting them know using template ." I think that allows for the possibility that it's not always inappropriate to report without warning, just as it's not always inappropriate to block without warning. The kind of vandalism that requires familiarity with Wikipedia (page moves, changing of images, etc.) indicates that the vandal is not really a clueless newbie. ElinorD (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a big fan of not paying attention to the level of warnings, but instead the types of edits made. If someone's first two edits are to blank or vandalize an admin's user or talk pages, screw the warnings, just ban them right then and there as a vandalism-only account (it's painfully easy to spot them sometimes). We're not a bureaucracy, and forcing people to go through a strict "level one through level four" warning process smacks of stupid. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  But it's not ALWAYS wrong to report without warning, is it? 

message: I think this box should be more noticeable; so I am proposing an alternative (here). I think it will reduce the number of false reports. GDonato (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the slight wording changes, but the new color makes it more difficult to read. Something a little calmer would be nice. - auburnpilot talk 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've reverted the background colour back to what it was. If anyone want's to play around with the colour I'm fine with that, but it has to be at least as easy to read as before. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: WP:AIAV and WP:RVAN are also shortcuts to this page and should be added to the  template. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: for WP:AIAV, as that's an abbreviation of the page's title - no problem.  for WP:RVAN; I know it's probably some obvious acronym, but what does RVAN stand for? UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  for WP:RVAN, which apparently stands for "Report VANdalism", according to the Wikipedia:Department directory. No problem. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, cheers! It Is Me Here (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add shortcuts 

message: I'd like to wrap this in a   tag so folks can hide the header by putting  div.aiv-header { display: none } into their monobook.css.  It won't affect the apperance for anyone who doesn't do that.  I've read the thing, and I'm lazy enough that not having to scroll down is appealing. :P  Does anyone object to this or can anyone think of any problem that this might cause? Or can I go ahead?  delldot ∇. 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well apparently no violent opposition so I'll go ahead.  If it causes any problems feel free to let me know or fix it yourself.  delldot ∇. 03:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *No opposition from me. Just interpret the silence and be bold. ;) It seems like a good change. Anthøny (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, now I'm off to bask in the lovely absence of the green box... :P delldot ∇. 01:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  div wrapper 

message: I've been working AIV for a good year and a half now, and a lot of reports get rejected because they're concerning an IP which has been warned multiple times in the past, gone quiet, and then made one recent vandal edit. I'd like to suggest changing current wording to specify that a full set of warnings has to be issued on the day of the offenses, and if multiple days have passed, the process is to be repeated; obviously, this is waived if the IP is clearly static. 
Example:
 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism	 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only (see Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism). For other types of vandalism, or problematic usernames see the links at the top of this page. You can use  to add notes to reports.
Important! – your report must follow these three points:
#The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism. 
#The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.
#Unregistered users must be active now, and unless the IP is static, warnings should be redone in full, even if they been issued in the past.
----	
If anyone has any other suggestions feel free to throw 'em at me. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes 

message: I just got an email from a user who tried to report vandalism here but saw his report vanish without comment (because it didn't use Template:IPvandal, but he didn't know that).  I know that I for one don't usually expect important information to be explained only in source comments.  What about changing:
Important! Your report must follow these three points:
#The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism. 
#The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.
#Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent.
to 
Important! Your report must follow these four points:
#The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism. 
#The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.
#Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent.
#The report must be formatted as described in the source for this page.
Any objections/suggestions?  If not, I'll make this change later today. Canderson7 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bureaucracy... Surely the right solution is to stop making nonstandard-format reports vanish?--Kotniski (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying instructions? 

message: please change Your concise reason (e.g. vandalised past 4th warning). ~~~~ to *  Your concise reason (e.g. vandalised past 4th warning). ~~~~please change Your concise reason (e.g. vandalised past 4th warning). ~~~~ to *  Your concise reason (e.g. vandalised past 4th warning). ~~~~ 83.24.55.100 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Danski454 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019