Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1

message: The header on this page suggests that editors use the  warning before reporting vandals here. I'm not sure that this is advisable, as a non-admin cannot follow up on this warning. Before I was an admin I would always stop and seek admin assistance after test3.   JeremyA 1 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
:I agree that non-admins should stop at test3. It's no good people making threats to vandals that can't be followed through. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
::I disagree.  I think AIV is the reason that such threats can be followed through.  I see that as the basic point. smoddy 1 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
:::I think there is a problem with using test4 unless it is definitely going to be followed through. Because someone who isn't an admin might have a different interpretation of what's a blockable offence than the admin consensus, I'd rather they didn't use test4 at all, even if by reporting it here they really were able to get someone blocked straight away. To me, test4 means "I am sitting here with my finger on the block button giving you one last chance and waiting to see if you vandalise again, at which point I will immediately block you." This can only really come from an admin, with the ability to block without having to wait for someone else to see the request, review the evidence, and agree that a test4-style warning was appropriate. Also,  is quite strongly worded and sufficient for most purposes, I would have thought. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
I dunno about reg. users using test4. Personally, I am okay with it, but it's up to you guys (I'm an admin so I use test4 anyways) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 1 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)
:Before I became an admin I didn't use test4 much (and if I did, it was usually after reporting on WP:VIP, but I'm okay with non-admins using test4 in situations where they know that an admin would block the user.  Knowing whether an admin would block might require a fair bit of experience fighting vandalism on the part of the non-admin posting the test4 though, so I'd rather that casual users who don't have much vandalism-fighting experience not use test4.  JYolkowski // talk 3 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
Adminship is about having extra tools. If non-admins can't be trusted with test4, they can't be trusted with test 1-3 either. Can't you place a test4 either if you're going away from the computer and nobody might notice the next vandalism and administer the block? Let's not limit vandal fighters further. --W(t) 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
*Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that non-admins shouldn't use test4—I think that that is up to the individual user. I simply feel that this page shouldn't make giving a test4 warning one of the pre-requisites for reporting a vandal here. My reason for this it that when I was a non-admin (not very long ago) I would have personally felt very uncomfortable about using the test4 message.    JeremyA 4 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
test4 is troublesome for use by non-admins because the time between a report to AIV and actual blocking by an administrator can easily be hours, depending on administrator availability. During that time the vandal in question can make quite a number of edits, making the "next time you block" part of the template a very empty threat. As people should not make empty threats, test4 is less useful for non-admins than, say, test3, which simply warns of blocking at some indeterminate time in the future. Collabi 11:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test4? 

message: type=comment
preload=Template:Test
editintro=Template:Test intro
default=User talk:
buttonlabel=Add a new comment to this page
bgcolor=#eeeeff
width=40
I noticed over at Village Pump (proposals) that there is a great tool (displayed above) that lets you give a  warning by entering the username to warn in the box. However, didn't see any discussion there of where to put such a tool. I know that when I do RC patrol, I keep AIAV open in Firefox (I have to have some tab open, why not AIAV), and I thought it might be useful to include this tool here for ease of use. Perhaps it could be changed to give a  warning instead (i.e., you list the user here and give a test4 at the same time) or if it wouldn't clutter things up too much, all five test warnings could be included here (as I understand it, a different box would be needed for each.) What do others think? -- Essjay ·   Talk 15:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
:I'd try doing a different button for each message, but it wouldn't be useful for me because I use my own. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would  be a good idea, but I again have my own User:Ilyanep/Ban] (I will try to make a page of those sorts of boxes, though... I think you should try to implement those ideas even if only for a trial basis. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: My dear Essjay, you may wish to see User:Smoddy/Warning. Does this fill your needs? Cheers, smoddy 16:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: That's exactly what I was thinking as well. See User:Ilyanep/Tools, I made that before reading your comments ;). I think I'll use that. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: No objections to there, no.  I have created User:Smoddy/Tools with all the templates I ever use.  Sub-page of VIP? smoddy 17:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: There are user scripts containing warning messages that can be integrated into Monobook.js that work well.--Dakota ~  ° 10:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Test box

message: I would like to complain about the page for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco. The article is full of false accusations and insulting language. The mayor is NOT gay and he certainly has earned his current position. Please review the article and make the appropriate changes.
:Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism is not the place to complain about the contents of an article. You should do that at Talk:Gavin Newsom or edit the page as you have done. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: gavin newsom

message: The AIAV works great, except when it comes to school IPs and other public machines. Admins are reluctant to block such IPs, and they often become a haven for vandals. In some cases (such as the New South Wales High Schools: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), over one hundred warnings and numerous short-term blocks have been issued by admins, yet anonymous users of these machines continue vandalizing pages with impunity.
I understand the reluctance to ban anonymous contributions from an IP possibly shared by legitimate users. However, when a machine is the source of constant vandalism, is it too much to ask legitimate users to spend the 30 seconds needed to register?  I'm sure almost all serious Wiki contributors are registered users anyway; I don't think I'm going overboard by expecting all contributors using public PCs to log in. OwenX 20:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because once registered they may still not be able to edit Wikipedia if still using the same IP.  I have blocked these IPs in the past, and believe there should be a template that we can use along the lines of "This IP has been blocked due to vandalism.  If you wish to help Wikipedia overcome this problem please report this vandalism to your ISP" or something. -- Francs2000 | Talk  20:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm tracking vandalism from User:198.110.227.3 which is an entire school district's proxy.  I just warned with test3.. yet.. if it is blocked, noone will be able to edit from there. Srl 16:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a good point, it doesn't restrict access to the content, just to participation.  By the way, what's the procedure for getting  put on a page? when is it appropriate?  Also (i'm a bit new at this too) if someone could check the user contributions and my warnings for the above user to see fi I'm doing it right, that'd be appreciated! Srl 17:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public machines and shared IPs 

message: User:65.23.232.135 has vandalsed two different pages; The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film),and Star Wars Battlefront II. On their user page I added a  template:test2. I fixed the ' Fellowships' page and am about to fix ' Star Wars ' page as well. Is there any thing else I should do? HopefullGomer 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, see if test2 has any effect - many rookies get with the program as soon as they're reminded that actual people watch over these pages.  If test2 doesn't make the anon shape up, then escalate your warnings; after template:test4, list them on this project page (not the Talk: page), and then one or more admins will be watching their every move. - jredmond 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism on two pages

message: On the page for Carstairs, Alberta, 209.89.199.44 wrote "Carstairs sucks."  I removed it, but it was certainly not appropriate. Has this person added similar comments on other pages? Cadillac 00:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism of a sort

message: The following was just posted on User_talk:192.139.27.18, a Calgary Board of Education IP:
====I go to Queen Elizabeth====
The individuals involved in the vandalism are mainly Gifted and Talented Education students, and many of them consider it fun or fail to realize that the Wikipedia doesn't exist just for their own enjoyment. Temporary IP bans don't seem to solve anything, as the guy on the computer next to me just vandalized the article on Hong Kong despite the fact that his vandalism has resulted in temporary bans in the past, similar for others. When asked about it, he said that "If they don't want us to do it, then they shouldn't let us edit it"
Once again, the system of short-term blocks on shared IPs simply isn't working. If the Wiki engine allowed registered users to post from blocked IPs, these shared IPs could be blocked permanently, for the benefit of all--legitimate school contributors and the rest of us. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support blocking the entire IP range. --causa sui talk 20:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So vandals would just be forced to register accounts and be able to blend into the crowd even better. What we need is a differentiated recent changes system whereby edits from blocked IPs come on a different list (and in an ideal world, the worst few categories of edits (from blocked IPs, page moves by new users) would need their edit to be approved by a trusted user. So, who wants to program PHP? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Public machines and shared IPs 

message: The individuals involved in the vandalism are mainly Gifted and Talented Education students, and many of them consider it fun or fail to realize that the Wikipedia doesn't exist just for their own enjoyment. Temporary IP bans don't seem to solve anything, as the guy on the computer next to me just vandalized the article on Hong Kong despite the fact that his vandalism has resulted in temporary bans in the past, similar for others. When asked about it, he said that "If they don't want us to do it, then they shouldn't let us edit it"
</blockquote>
Once again, the system of short-term blocks on shared IPs simply isn't working. If the Wiki engine allowed registered users to post from blocked IPs, these shared IPs could be blocked permanently, for the benefit of all--legitimate school contributors and the rest of us. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support blocking the entire IP range. --causa sui talk 20:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So vandals would just be forced to register accounts and be able to blend into the crowd even better. What we need is a differentiated recent changes system whereby edits from blocked IPs come on a different list (and in an ideal world, the worst few categories of edits (from blocked IPs, page moves by new users) would need their edit to be approved by a trusted user. So, who wants to program PHP? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I go to Queen Elizabeth

message: If a vandal who has previously been warned and blocked returns after their block expires to commit the same vandalism, is it necessary to warn them again, or should we just report it immediately? Aquillion 16:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part, I'd say yes, but it depends on how long after the vandal's previous block expired, and the behaviour in this time. If the vandal's block expired a month ago, and has made useful contributions before making a questionable edit, then I'd say a warning might be a appropriate. If the vandal immediately vandalises an article after the block expires (or even does nothing for, say, a month, then the first edit is vandalism), I would think that it's appropriate to just report it immediately. --Deathphoenix 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In general I'd say reblocking immediately is fine, though if at all possible you should make sure it's the same vandal and not just someone using the same IP. I generally only immediately reblock returning vandals if the content or style of their vandalism is recognisably the same. Be on the lookout for school IPs which might look like persistent vandals but have many more newbie-test-style edits and sometimes even some good edits mixed in. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 17:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There aren't any mechanism for administrators on one wiki-project to block IP's on others. I'm an administrator here on the english wikipedia, but I don't have any powers on any other wiki. And the other way around. The many hundred different wikipedias are completely separate web sites in this (and many other) respects. There are also different blocking-policies among the wikis with some being more tollerable to newbie-testing etc than others, so allowing admins on one project to block users on a different wikipedia is probably not a good idea. It might seem like it on clear cut vandalism like you refer to, but there will always be borderline cases. Whether admins on other projects check IP-history on the english wikipedia before blocking, I don't know. I doubt it. At least I never bother to check any history on other wikis. Shanes 08:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Returning vandals

message: Admins, it would really help us non-admins greatly if you remember to add  to the vandals' talk pages when blocking them.  --Nlu 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's preferable. But the best way to check for recent blocks is definitely the block log. There are cases where posting a test5-message is not on top of an admins to-do list (e.g. reverting the vandalism is more important) and sometimes one just forgets. And the user:talk pages are really primarily meant for messages to the user in question. And, in that regard, a test5 is slightly redundant as he'll get the message anyway when he tries to edit after being blocked. Shanes 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of <nowiki>{{test5}}</nowiki>

message: I just want it stated for the record that the green background thingy for this page is really cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.21.215 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Green stuff

message: A anon vandal I've been following for the past few days was blocked yesterday, but now a new IP is vandalising the same page (animal, among others).  Is it alright to post an alert right away in cases like this, or better to assume good faith and go through the warning templates on the new talk page? 
IPs in question:
#  
#  
—Jwanders 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued Vandalism with New IP

message: Hey just out of curiosity why is this page protected from moves? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Doc glasgow protected it a while ago.  I noticed it today and initially was alarmed, thinking it was a total protection, so I unprotected it and then saw that it was just a move protection, presumably because a move vandal (Willy, perhaps?) had attacked the page.  I decided, in light of that, to reprotect it.  Doc glasglow never put a  on the page, so I did that to alert anyone who might see the protection.  --Nlu (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How long ago was it protected? Shouldn't pages be unprotected after a certain amount of time? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since October 11.  However, I think the length of protection thing might not apply if the protection is against moves only.  Folks, what do you think?  --Nlu (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think an anti-move protection on all pages dealing with vandalism is a very good idea.-gadfium 08:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't mind the anti-move protection on the pages for reporting vandalism.  Its unlikely that there would be a consensus for renaming it that wouldn't involve an admin wandering by, and an admin could remove the protection if needed and move the page then. --Syrthiss 12:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing against the move protection, but the standard move protection template isn't appropriate in this context. Is there an equivalent of  for moves? Rd232 talk 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to have a template on the page, since there is no reason at all to move it. The template is clearly intended for cases of move-wars rather than stability of important community pages. To that effect I have removed it. I don't think it needs to be tagged at all, since it's functioning just fine and tags are intended to indicate reduced functionality. Anyone seeking to move this should ask on WP:AN or WP:RM. -Splashtalk 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with Splash: if it ain't broke don't fix it.--Alhutch 23:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: Somebody's just changed Byron Nelson's page to say that he died on January 1, 2006 - in other words, tomorrow, since Nelson lives in the United States. I'll edit it back, but is there anything else I should do? --Charlene.vickers 03:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't know if this is vandalism or stupidity

message: What's going on with these asian user names? They're being created almost faster than they can be deleted. Is anybody getting a fix on the IP that's doing this? JHMM13 (T | C)   01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's most likely a bot. Don't worry, Curps's bot usually takes care of those. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * I assume that the bots are using the same IP to create these multitudes of username. There should be a way to restrict the amount of usernames created in a given time period. (eg: One username per hour per IP address) I assume the framework is already setup since Admins (which I hope to be one day) can block an IP for a set amount of time. If I knew more about Wikipedia's design structure I just might be able to write a the PHP code to handle this feat. Pattersonc 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian user names created and deleted 

message: I just restored User:204.174.27.234 again. User:Nlu removed him or her, saying it wasn't spam, but I disagree. I just happened to come across his or her linkspam; however, if you check the contributions, it becomes apparent that the user has been trying to insert certain external links since the end of December on several pages, against the wishes of the editors of those pages. It seems very likely that the user has a financial interest in the books that he/she repeatedly keeps linking to. (Sometimes quite clumsily, such as "Google search for...".) Also, the user has been warned a few times. Junes 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored 204.174.27.234 

message: Could someone please adjust the text of this page to make it clear when someone should list a vandal here vs. at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress? I understand that this page gets faster response, but if that is the case, why would anyone ever list a vandal there? If there is not a clear answer to this, perhaps WP:VIP should be deleted or merged into this page.--Srleffler 18:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page vs. Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

message: Isn't the Willy_on_wheels example in the header just undeserved publicity and should be replaced with a permanently banned fictional username such as User:Example vandal name or the like? Femto 14:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example vandal 

message: apparently made several nonsense articles that were speedied before the user was brought to AIV.  Because they were speedied, without knowing the article titles there isn't (AFAIK) a way to connect the user to the articles.  Is there another way to see deleted edits belonging to a user? --Syrthiss 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a developer.  I'm guessing that's the only way to track them down, unless you know the names of the articles. Guettarda 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kate's tool briefly had a "browse deleted contribs" feature that was disabled when Special:Undelete was re-locked to admins only a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, that feature of Kate's is not availble to anyone anymore, even admins. But asking Kate to switch that back on would be one way. -Splashtalk 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt it would be switched on. It was turned off as the result of Brion turning off several features of Special:Undelete after the "Jimbo rapes babies" edit summary vandal. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant have Kate switch the feature back on in his tool so that admins can use it. I presume a non-admin would just get a "you are not part of the Cabal" message. -Splashtalk 23:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be nice... but I'm not really sure how it would be able determine that a certain user is a sysop or not, as it isn't part of the local wiki (and hopefully those aren't forwarded with HTTP GET requests). I think it could be done if the code were moved into a Special page... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shhhh. Interiot to the rescue again. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I hadn't seen before 

message: * I love that Wikipedia is an open, free encyclopedia but wouldn't it it still be open and free if one were required to have a free user account to edit a page? Wouldn't this cut down the amount of vandalism since most is done by non-registered users anyhow? Plus, it would eliminate the issue of multiple users on one IP address. Of course, a vandal could create new usernames but this would require a little more effort on their part and would inevitably result in less vandalism and less time resolving the issues they've created making for a better organized, more accountable Wikipedia.. Pattersonc 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduce Vandalism

message: A user, -=-=DARK=-=-, appears to be a vandal, but his username causes template:vandal to break, leaving . Any solutions? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got a result at Village Pump, who recommended  to produce . smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with template 

message: I just can't believe how feeble the measures against vandals, and especially habitual vandals, are.  A clear case of vandalism should result in the IP being blocked for a serious amount of time without warning.  I mean, are we an encyclopedia or some form of chat room?  What I find especially bizarre is that when I spot a vandal and his history shows that he has been at it repeatedly, i. e. it wasn't just an isolated case of "newbie sandboxing", then there is still all this red tape before the culprit sees even the slightest form of forfeit.  Maikel 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you don't know any of the rouge admins. --maru  (talk) contribs 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, I'm more of a bisque colour. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rouge admin, heh. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer blue.  --Nlu (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Is Far Too Soft On Vandals 

message: Anybody know how to stop this vandal? JHMM13 (T | C)   04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked a different one, so at least two IPs.  --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like people are blocking them left and right now.  --Nlu (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem looks somewhat resolved. Good work, admins. JHMM13 (T | C)   05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You can find a list of all IPs used by this vandal at User:Mushroom/Squidward. Mushroom (Talk) 07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This vandal is coming in on tons of different addresses, so they're probably open proxies of some sort.  Thankfully whoever is responsible for this is linking to the same :Image:Squid.jpg file as some sort of signature, making it quite painless to reverse the damage.    Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a good thing: this vandal is helping us to identify a lot of open proxies. By the way, I think we can safely assume that all of them are open proxies. If no one objects, I will make all those blocks indefinite. Mushroom (Talk) 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How was he able to use so many different IPs? I must have reverted over 150 of these, all seminly different IPS. Paul August ☎ 05:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He probably used one of those programs that anonymize a connection using a list of open proxies. Mushroom (Talk) 05:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squidward 

message: I'm not sure if the following counts as vandalism or a content dispute. Someone deleted about half of an article I wrote (after flagging it as POV first) and when the ensuing discussion didn't resolve it I put up an rfc. Six other people joined in and none of them agreed with the other guy. Still, he persists in deleting large chunks of text. I am inclined to call this vandalism, so I put up a warning on his talk page (not an official template because I wasn't sure). To no avail. Actually, it's a bit silly not to mention what this is about. It's Hiroshima (film). DirkvdM 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tricky one.  Coming from an impartial view, everyone has all got a bit het up about it.  I'm inclined to say not vandalism, just good old stubborness.  A suggestion to you - put the NPOV tag on the section, and let the discussion continue.  While I understand your reluctance for the NPOV tag, bear in mind that the tag says the POV is disputed, it is not a clear statement that the article has a POV.  That will let the text stand and give time for discussion to arrive at a final version.  I have to say, however, that the fact that Cubdriver lost most credence in the discussion when it transpired that they hadn't seen the film, and then then shot themself in the foot by their mailicious edit to the comment tag in the last edit - that, I think, is more likely vandalism, and above all is childish.  If you want a neutral observer to try and help out resolving it, drop me a note, I'm happy to try and resolve it. Kcordina 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree except for one essential point; there has already been an rfc and several people have responded to it and as far as I can see it has already been settled. Is there a next step I could take after the rfc, other than crying 'vandalism'? DirkvdM 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: True, it does seem something more 'official' is needed.  You could try a request for mediation, or ask the cabal for help - see Wikipedia:Mediation, they are often efficient at solving things. Kcordina 09:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may interject, I think that this is a form of vandalism.  I don't see this as being any different than blanking random pages for no reason.  You all have established that the material is good for the article and yet he keeps deleting it.  Yes it is childish, but it is also blanking and I would consider it vandalism.  Just my opinion.  Kntrabssi 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this vandalism? 

message: In the past I have had to revert some changes that Ghosts&empties made to various articles.  I placed warnings on their talk page as a result.  They also provide a number of good edits as well though.  Now just recently they have blanked out the warnings that were put on their talk page by me.  I have since reverted that change.  If this was done as some sort of change in the user's attitude, that they wanted to sort of clean up their act or whatever, then I'd be fine with them as an editor.  But when they make these nonsense edits while also adding good edits they seem more like either a schizophrenic or a troll.  So, what can/should be done?  Does any admin think that a warning from an admin and not just me, the common editor, would help?  Dismas|(talk) 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Some people don't like it when others blank their talk pages, and in the case of vandals it's bad form, but there technically isn't anything wrong with blanking your own talk page.  Some users do that instead of archiving, since everything is in the history anyway.  So blocking someone for blanking their own talk page might not be the best idea; wait for them to vandalize articles or article talk pages. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm unsure as to what to do in this case 

message: In the case that an accused vandal is believes what he/she is doing is not vandalism, do they have the right to remove themselves from this page?  I didn't think that was the case, I was under the impression that Admins are the only ones who should remove names from this page!  Kntrabssi 02:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal from AP:AIV 

message: According to WP:V removing dispute tags if there is clearily outlined dispute on the talk page is a vandalism. On the the other hand it is not obvious if the dispute is clearily outlined here. Please provide a clear description what statements and why are disputed in the article. If possible please consider using narrower tags like , ,  or {Disputeabout|Topic of dispute}}, etc. Do you really dispute everything in the article? Try to settle your your dispute on the talk page, or represent two views on a problem (such and such authors state this, but other authors object that, etc.), if some facts are unsourced or the sources are dubious, please use the  or  credibility template. If you want me to protect the article while you are settling your dispute - I can do it for you, just ask. abakharev 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you, by chance, in the wrong place? -Splashtalk 03:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, someone listed a tag-removal/replacement dispute as vandalism. I suppose this is the explanation that this is a bad thing. See my talk page for more. android79 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tags and their removal

message: looks highly suspicious, check out userpage and talk page. Are there any guidelines for this sort of thing? Makemi 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there guidelines for this?

message: On March 15, 2006, the User:Terminatorius bot created by User:Audriusa blanked warnings from several user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning template where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. The bot was later stopped and the changes were reverted by the bot owner. Do you think this type of bot is a good idea? Please see discussion at WP:BRFA#User:Terminatorius - automated blanking of the vandal anonymous IP talk pages Wuzzy 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminatorius bot blanks warnings

message: An anonymous user has repeatedly, albeit infrequently (on the order of days, or sometimes weeks between incidents) vandalized the Tony Stewart article by changing Tony Stewart's middle name of "Wayne" to "Maximus."  Complicating the problem is that the vandal uses different IPs; although many have come from 69.223.11.14, which has been blocked in the past for this, other IPs in the 69.*.*.* range have been used as well.  What's the appropriate way to handle this? Chuck 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the best way to handle this is to keep that page (or related pages) on your watchlist and wait to see if it happens again. We can't really predict which IP he's going to come from next, but it's not so severe that page protection is warranted. Keep at it, soldier! JHMM13 (T | C)   15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tony Stewart]] vandal: how to handle?

message: Check RC...he's back again. JHMM13 (T | C)   07:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind...seemed to be under control moments after it started. Good work Tawkerbot, JHMM13 (T | C)   15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squidward 

message: The current management of items that were dealt with is difficult to follow; this page could use more transparency, by means of archiving. It's impossible to get an easy notion of how requests are handled. When an item is removed from the alerts, one has to go back to an earlier revision just to check the blocklog link. Try finding out whether there was a comment given in an incident that happened only yesterday.
It should not be expected from people who have listed an item that they go rooting through the edit history for possible replies. The edit summaries are not the best place for comments, especially for advice directed at inexperienced users who may never see it. Thus the suggestion is to add the following footer (the instructions in the header will have to be changed accordingly, too):
Done (or some other heading)
----
Move items that were dealt with below here. Archive when appropriate: Put the current pageID in the revision link, delete the old requests, put "archive" in the edit summary. — Revision prior to last archive:
----
"List empty" does not have to mean "page empty". The additional keystrokes for the copy&paste of (re)moved items are more than offset by not having to explain every action. The edit summary for the basic 'done' removal can be as simple as "rm" or "one done, 2 alerts remain". The revision links will create a continuous chain of archive pages. (Should these prove cumbersome or of little use, skip that part, then one still would have only to seek the archive summaries in the edit history). It becomes possible to add later clarifications. All content that is related to an alert stays together and comments remain retraceable at a glance. Femto 19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, nobody answered but that also means nobody supported it :) I think vandal fighting is enough of a chore already without adding an extra level of bureacracy. I have no problems with delving into the history to find out what happened. That said, you were right to be bold given that nobody objected, so let's give it a run and see how it goes. --kingboyk 18:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the beauty is that this should not create any extra levels of bureaucracy at all; instead it increases the efficiency of the bureaucracy that is already there. It just shifts from its current obscurity to a place where the most people get the most use of it. Femto 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of the "Done" section.  Are reports to be moved there after an admin has blocked, after they have reviewed, or after both?  I have a feeling that there will be a ton of reports, and keeping up with the archiving process will be quite a task.  Could someone just clarify the use of this? --lightdarkness (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those reports will be moved that would have been re-moved instead, nothing changes there. Femto 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm also wondering about the purpose of this. I don't like the second 'edit' button either. Gflores Talk 19:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above two users. It's just extra work piled on for the vandal fighters to do while more vandalism takes place. tv316 19:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I agree with Gator. The whole point behind this page was to have something hassle-free. And anyway, there's hardly ever the need to delve into the archives here. Still, you do get points for being bold, as does Gator. --W(t) 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive procedure proposal 

message: What if the user doesn't vandalize often, but it appears that every edit over the past few months has been vandalism?  They have recieved 9 warnings, never responded, and have been temporarily blocked.  I would list on the page, but it doesn't seem to fall under the specific criteria. The user is Cackletta76 Atropos 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What if..?

message: If  They have not vandalized very recently (past 2 hours) since the last warning ( or ), what is to be done?
Surely it's not good if someone is warned and then takes to vandalizing pages no-one is watching (so that nobody ever notices the vandalism within two hours). 
I also reworded \header to remove the implication that the warning has to be recent. Septentrionalis 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have recent changes patrollers who spot a lot of vandalism even if the page isn't watched (and there's bots and IRC feeds too). The problem with "stale" reports is that they are often for IP addresses, and quite often shared IPs. In the latter case we can't really block them hours after the event, and we are cautious with regards to any IP address. The extra burden on admins having to review and dismiss stale reports is not imho offset by the small number of rampant vandals caught through those reports. --kingboyk 22:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity

message: The user 65.6.4.143 has been repeatedly vandalizing and is now mounting personal attacks on those who have attempted to stop him/her.  Please place a temporary block at the earliest convenience.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 17:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has already been blocked. Please put any further alerts on the project page, not the talk page.--Adam  (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to add that it's always a good idea to look at the block list before posting. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  65.6.4.143 

message: Doesn't #ABECF8 look nice instead of the pea-soup green, which reminds me of the film The Exorcist? Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colour

message: We need to have RandiRice blocked.  The Flattbush article keeps getting vandalized. It's been well over 20 times that they have blanked out the entire thing, not to mention the vandalising that they do.  All of their contributions have been vandalism. It's time to ban them from wikipedia.  P.S. The flattbush article itself should stay up they have no right to get it pulled.  They only aim to lie to the public and create this "triumphant" Communist image, when it could not be further from the truth and in actuality, the oppressive, exploitative ideals of Marxism should be out there being exposed, hidden by any means instead of being glorified at a respectable site like Wikipedia.  Let's begin to consider banning them.I wrote the whole article and they do not want the real story out, because it makes the band (RandiRice) look rather untruthful.Stabinator 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the non-encyclopedic content from the article; I believe that's what User:RancidRice was trying to do.  The section in question was ridiculously non-encyclopedic.  Hopefully there won't be any further conflicts, but perhaps that's wishful thinking. JDoorjam     Talk 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They blanked out the whole thing, not me.  Rancid RIce was being whiney like a teenage girl when he doesnt get his way...he was just being difficult. That was the real history of the band and was checked by numerous people involved throughout the history. I don't really understand where you're coming from. Stabinator 18:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting ridiculous 

message: In tracing the vandalism of a page, I came across user 72.12.201.5  This is a very prolific vandal, from a high school. Much of the vandalism seems to be personal insults, probably of people he knows, but there is quite a lot of obscenities on political figures and racist comments. This user has had several blocks in the last couple of months, including 3 this last week. And 4 Final warnings including 2 this week. He may have switched to a new id: 72.20.128.64 which has just appeared this week, and reinstated one of his vandalizations. CFLeon 00:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prolific & Obscene Vandal 

message: Merecat
Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush
"merecat" is repeatedly deleting my comments on a talk page.
With very poor excuses possibly realistically relevant to one
line, merecat deletes entire paragraphs of information.
I am new to wikipedia, so I would appreciate any insights
anybody might have on what to do about this behavior.
It is plainly obvious that merecat is not operating in good faith.
I'd like to see wikipedia recuse merecat from the discussion,
and usher in some Republicans with level heads to help in the neutral-ification process.
Please help, nobody should have to put up with this kind of abuse.
Prometheuspan 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing was done because what you are dealing with is not vandalism. It's a content dispute. I would recommend using the steps on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve the dispute. Start with trying to discuss things with the user if you haven't already. If you think administrator intervention is required, bring it up on the administrator's noticeboard. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reported vandalism, got no response 

message: I frequently notice alerts being added to this page about users who clearly do not meet the criteria for administrative intervention (i.e. have not vandalized in 24hrs, have barely vandalized at all, are involved in a content dispute rather than vandalism, etc.), and I was wondering if would be considered appropriate for a non-admin such as myself to remove these alerts? (Naturally I would leave an edit summary explaining the reasons for removing the alert.) Typically, I just leave them alone and wait for admins to go through the list and clear each user; however, there are many times, such as today, when there is an enormous backlog of alerts, many of which do not really require admin intervention, and it seems that removing the unnecessary alerts would allow for admins to deal with the real vandals more promptly. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would definatly be approprite for non-admins to remove users who have been blocked. Prodego talk 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but what about users who have not been blocked, yet whom there is clearly no reason to block nor for an admin to investigate? For instance,  was just listed as having vandalized past his final warning, yet he has not been warned nor has he vandalized since the 23rd of April, and it is a shared IP registered to Dartmouth College--clearly no reason for an admin to intervene just yet, and sysops could spend more time dealing with actual vandalism in progress. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't object to you and other trustworthy non-admins remove users who do not meet the criteria the page requires, namely: The vandal has to have been warned and the vandal has to have vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning. Prodego talk 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question is who qualifies as a "trustworthy nonadmin" and who doesn't? - Glen TC (Stollery) 23:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An admin would still need to check if the block has been applied so not much work is saved by removing the entry by a non-admin. In the case of an erronious listing, I have always felt comfortable to point out the error (eg "content dispute") in a comment but let an admin make the final call on the matter. Agathoclea 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that there would be any need to check that a block had been applied if an established user puts in the edit summary something like; Remove 14.329.86.47, blocked by Curps, 24 hrs. List NOT EMPTY. I see such edit summmaries frequently, and often I don't know if the editor in question is an admin or not. I'd only check if I had reason not to trust someone. AnnH ♫ 23:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, that seems reasonable. I certainly wouldn't remove any borderline vandals or anything an admin might want to look at--i.e., an admin may want to get involved in a content dispute. I would just remove alerts that clearly do not belong per Prodego's reasoning above. Thanks! I wanted to make sure that I wouldn't cause more stress for myself and anothers as a result of my ignorance about some rule regarding AIV, when I really just want to alleviate a tid bit of stress off the admins. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having non-admins flag up the less obvious block cases with a comment could certainly be helpful. This allows the obvious cases to get first priority attention, and once they are all blocked an admin can look at the less obvious cases and deal with them as they feel appropriate. Please do remove blocked users though, that helps a lot (unless I'm being continually edit conflicted as happened earlier today ;-) ). Petros471 21:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good point. It might not be worth the extra overhead. How about no removing by non admins, just commenting. That's still pretty helpful, and we could still block people that try to use the page for ill. Either way messing with this page would be a pretty quick way to get blocked. - Taxman Talk 04:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, well as there didn't seem to be much objection to my helping out with this, I've already removed a few alerts. If anyone disagrees with any of my actions or finds it inappropriate for me to be doing this, please drop a note on my talk page and I will stop at once. I've had AIV on my watchlist for some time and have made a habit out of helping other non-admins to hold off vandalism onslaughts while we wait for an admin to arrive, so I think I have a decent idea of what vandals truly need administrator attention and which ones don't (as I believe many non-admins do). I personally agree that this should be dealt with in much the same way as WP:AfD, that if an action does not require administrator tools there is no problem for non-admins to act, so long as their actions are appropriate. This page is pretty closely monitored, so I think that any questionable removals will be spotted, and users whose actions are not helpful will be told to stop; thus, I don't think there is really any need for more overhead. But anyway, I just want to help out here, so if my actions are found to be unhelpful I will have no problem stopping at once. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I also strongly support you (and anyone else) doing this sort of work.  I don't think it's right to make a rule that only admins can remove entries; if a vandal removes themselves, list them on WP:AN/I (where entries are never removed, they are archived), and it will be dealt with.  The principle on Wikipedia is that anyone can do anything, until they show themselves to be screwing it up too much.  The only reason we even have the sysop bit is that some abilities are too hard to quickly fix if they are misused, so we restrict who has access to them.  Admins are not smarter than anyone else and it's great that you are helping out in this way.  Thanks for asking, though - more discussion is also always a good and useful thing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate for Non-Admins to Remove Alerts?