Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 4

message: Is there some way - any way - of avoiding edit conflicts, or at least minimising their inconvenience, on this page of all pages? I have just typed in the same vandal warning five times, and on each occasion lost my text in an edit conflict. The competing warnings were equally valid, but is there not some way of holding text for resubmission in this situation?--Anthony.bradbury 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is annoying - what I do is "Show preview" before posting and if I am  advised that another edit  has been made, scroll down to the second edit screen below where my edit is still intact - cut and paste it into the top edit screen and with luck and fast fingers only have to do this a few times before I get in there.  A pain, but at least you don't have to keep losing and re-typing that same text. Hope this helps - of course if the edit system can be improved as you suggest, all the better. --Tvoz 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, I use "show changes" and, if anything comes up yellow, I copy what I've written (or, if I'm posting several responses in a single thread, I copy what has been said in the meantime). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Depending on your browser and cache settings -- the last page on your back button should still contain the text you typed in.  This has worked for me every time I have had an edit conflict. -- Renesis (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: First, I type FAST! I do not care about typos in my explanation, the admins get the picture.  Second of all, If i have edit conflicted and I suspect it again, I usually do a quick <SHIFT> + <HOME> then a <CTRL> + C top copy and it is on the clipborad in case I gotta repaste it quick.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Type your edit into a text editor, then click the edit button, paste, then save, this reduces the chance of an edit conflict to just a few seconds. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Is this the right page to report offensive usernames? 
*  - offensive username
*  - means Shit in Italian
*  - means Shit in Spanish
*  - offensive
— Canderous Ordo 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, please list them on the main page (:)!  I have blocked User:Poop, but the others have made no edits (if they are even registered). Thanks! -- Renesis (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "if they are even registered" — The "logs" link should at least show the account creation, unless the account has been completely deleted. "Mierda" and "Piss" show up that way, "Merda" doesn't (now). – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:34, 2 Dec 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A more reliable check is to go to the user page and see if the "User contributions" link shows up in the toolbox.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But one can create an account without making any contribs. In that situation, the account creation should still show up in "logs". Will the contribs link show up always and only in that situation? See the "Merda" listing above. – SAJordan talkcontribs 21:54, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, even if a user doesn't make any contributions, you can still tell if that username exists by looking at "user contributions". If the account has not been registered, then "user contributions" will not be there. However, if an IP has not made any contributions at all, it will not show you the user contributions link. Nishkid64 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive names 

message: How come many times, admins remove vandals from the list because they haven't vandalized in half an hour or an hour. The page says don't list it if they haven't vandalized in 24 hrs, don't list them. A vandal can stop for a little while and then resume. What if he took a break to do something, like eat lunch. Does that mean their name gets removed? In my mind, if they've vandalized after the final warning less than 24 hours ago (not one hour), they can be blocked. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 17:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really can't vouch for this, but I personally ignore periodic breaks from vandalism sprees. Your thoughts were the exact same I had in my mind when I started blocking vandals, and I still will block vandals if they have vandalized within the last 18 or so hours. Nishkid64 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My personal cutoff is around 1.5 hours. Blocking is a preventative action, not a punitive one. If they've stopped vandalising, there is no point blocking them. That's with IP addresses - logged in users, I'll block regardless of the time. With IP addresses, you need to always keep in mind that you might be blocking a helpful editor who happens to use that IP next, 1.5 hours is more than long enough for someone else to be using that address. My main exception is if they've just come off another block, as that usually means it's the same person, so is probably a static address. --Tango 21:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We have bots that track the edits of vandals for 24-hour periods of time and they are reported by those bots at that time. ZsinjTalk 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but they report immediately after the 4th vandalism edit in 24 hours. We're talking about the time since the last edit, not the time since the first edit. --Tango 11:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, if a user hasn't vandalized in the last 30 minutes, I won't block him, although I would leave him listed for 45-60 minutes in AIV just in case. As stated, you block to prevent further damage, not to punish what someone has done in the past. -- ReyBrujo 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure that if a guy has vandalized maybe 15 hours ago, they'll probably come back and vandalize within the next day or two. According to your system of blocking, that user would not be blocked, and they could continue to vandalize sporadically. I would block them because I am inclined to believe that this user will come back to vandalize. It may seem like a punitive measure, but I do what I feel is most appropriate in such situations. Nishkid64 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the important thing to consider is how long ago they vandalised relative to the length of the block you would impose. If you're only going to impose a 24 hours block (as is normal for IP addresses), it won't stop them coming back in a couple of days. In your example, the vandal should have been blocked for 24 hours 15 hours ago, so he would have 9 hours left. A block at the right time wouldn't have stopped him coming back the next day, so why should a late block do so? If we were worried about IP vandals coming back the next day, the standard block would be longer than 24 hours. It isn't any longer, since we don't want to risk collateral damage. --Tango 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding ReyBrujo's comment, maybe there could be some sort of "watchilst" section either here or somewhere else?  Sometimes I am keeping track of a user adding “sneaky vandalism” to articles, such as changing facts despite warnings to desist.  If I have to sign off, the user might be able to continue in this manner for a while before he is recognized.  I could solve this problem, though, by adding the user to some sort of “watchlist” page, which could also be used for sporadic IP vandals who are currently on their last warning.  This would clean up the main WP:AIV page by removing users who probably won't be blocked unless they vandalize again.  But these are just my own thoughts– please let me know if such an arrangement would be practical.  Thanks, Dar-Ape 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. --Tango 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Dar-Ape's idea, too. I try to keep watching vandals, but sometimes it's hard. Is it feasible? riana_dzasta 12:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could have a WP:AIV/LT (long term?) page, and move them there instead of just adding a comment like "keeping here to watch for a little bit". If paranoid, we can full protect the page so that only admins can report and remove from there, which would prevent anyone from bypassing AIV. This may solve cases where users vandalize a little every day, but not enough to get blocked by some admins (or at least, I) due this "moral" problem we have. This list could also be a detect candidates for Wikipedia:Abuse reports. -- ReyBrujo 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also suggest adding sneaky vandals to the blacklists of the bots in the IRC channels like #vandalism-en-wp.  You can put "r=sneaky vandal" so those folks can keep an eye on them.  delldot | talk 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of valid vandals 

message: I am sorry for that edit. I used the wrong template on that IP address. I hope I fixed it.
 :)  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My apologies

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

message: The page says "Only list here if: ... They have vandalized recently (past 24 hours)..."  I think this should be changed to "(past few hours)" as there is almost no chance of someone being blocked who has not edited for several hours.  Furthermore, I hesitate to put a number on this, and think "few" might work best.  Thoughts?  Dar-Ape 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were very profliifent vandals and have just come off a long block, I would be inclined to give them another if it was in the last 24 hours. ViridaeTalk 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here.  Borisblue 08:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: The instructions are written in a way which would seem to imply that someone is not reportable here after the following sequence of recent events:
# Test4
# Vandalism
# Another test4
They are clearly reportable after (2) above, and it would be odd if someone posting another warning (3) were to change that.  The point is that someone should be reportable here if they have vandalised after a recent warning which claims to be a final warning, even if it turns out not to be.  I'm going to change the wording to reflect this.  — Alan✉ 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what would be great, is if folks trying to stop vandalism could go to one page that listed warning templates, instead of having to look here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and 57 other places. I realize that "Wikipedians" fetishize bureaucracy, but Christ. Cribcage 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes. I only use WP:WARN, maybe WP:UTM if I don't immediately find what I'm looking for (which is rare). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  final warning 

message: What's the policy on reporting abuse? Should editors do this, or leave it to the administrators? This talk page has a contact email, though I am holding back on contacting them incase it's an admin-only thing. Thanks! JoshHolloway 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to leave it to administrators. Admins are just normal users with "access to technical features that help with maintenance". Whether the school will actually get back to you or fix the issue is another thing. I've tried it a couple times without apparent success. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) JoshHolloway 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting to school admins 

message: I believe there's been an error. "" was not blocked, and the user who removed my notice claimed it was a content dispute. This is not the case. The user removed content repeatedly after three warnings, eventually getting inWikipedia:civil enough with me to make an offensive comment to my user talk page. Vandal, even if some don't see the clarity of the situation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a content dispute, you did not help the situation by issuing vandal warnings either, clearly wasn't vandalism. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell, Matthew? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregarding your off-color remarks to Matthew, it is a content dispute, hence it is not appropriate for this board. Please use dispute resolution. Thanks. --210physicq (c) 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dismissal 

message: If someone reports a suspected open proxy but there has not been recent vandalism from that IP and the suspect has been reported at WP:OP for investigation, can/should we remove the reports from the listing? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These all belong here: WP:OP#Waiting. ZsinjTalk 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems to be paying attention over there, and I'm trying to do something about the enormous backlog. MER-C 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Admins watching this page are not equipped with the knowledge to determine open proxies. --WinHunter (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence I'm picking the ones that can be verified by a simple check of the RBLs. MER-C 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is most admins (including me) have no idea what RBLs is and what those reports implies. --WinHunter (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: How often do admin look at this page? Because I don't want to suggestions in a row to go with out replies there. Cheers, --HamedogTalk|@ 06:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure but ask that over there? :) This is not a general questions type page. Village Pump or Help Desk is good for that...or the page you are talking about. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but the issue is that not many people go there and only admins can edit that template.--HamedogTalk|@ 06:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you take a hint?--HamedogTalk|@ 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you really needed assistance, post at WP:AN. I responded to your ITN proposal at the candidate page. Nishkid64 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates]] 

message: :This discussion was copied from the project page where it occured pending consensus. --Matthew 06:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate Regarding 24.183.40.221 

message: I'm just wondering why a lot of admins block people for 31 hours. Anyone know why? --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 20:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the exact thing. It probably just because 31 hours is a day and a quarter. Cheers, PTO 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use it sometimes because it will disrupt two school days.  I imagine it's related to that somehow.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also on the pull-down menu for block options. alphachimp. 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the 24-hour option allows the vandal to return at the same time the next day to engage in whatever prohibited activities they were in. The 31-hour option mitigates that to some extent. --210physicq (c) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Drini started it, his explanation is here. I guess the point about disrupting the pattern of coming back the next day same time and continuing is why most people use it. The drop down for blocks is configurable by a Mediawiki: page, and it became popular enough to be added as one of the standard values. --pgk 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  31 Hours 

message: What do people think of a bot that looks up each user posted here, then removes them if they are already blocked? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been requested over on Wikipedia:Bot Requests. I think there's anything other than agreement that such a bot would be helpful. alphachimp. 20:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it shall be my next project then. Ah, found the request Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_8#WP:AIV-Clearing_Bot.3F. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The bot is almost done, I will make a request for approval soon. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible bot

message: An IP user apologized after realizing the IP is shared.
I have noticed many shared IPs are blocked without such instructions for other users of the same IP. I suggest such information to be added in a special shared IP blocking template.
--Skyfiler 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find them in  and . But are they actually in use?--Skyfiler 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side effect of adding the SharedIP template 

message: I thought it would be trickier than it was, but I found a very elegant solution. Now this bot can perform this task to any number of pages. Testing now. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report page now covered by HBC AIV helperbot 

message: There appears to be a lot of WoW like vandalism going on, probably by the same person. Heads up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. We also are getting some WoW vandalism on Wikinews. FellowWikipedian 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "WoW" mean? How about a link? JRSpriggs 11:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the infamous vandal User:Willy on Wheels. FellowWikipedian 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Or one of his many wannabes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or World of Warcraft. ;-) One person who put "WoW" in his username for this reason almost got blocked for it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WoW 

message: It looks like WP:PAIN may end up being removed. In that case, will personal attacks and incivility issues now be handled here? --Barberio 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to WP:DR for disputes, WP:AIV for vandals (those who post trolling attacks only), WP:RFC for egrarious behavior, and take only extreme cases to WP:ANI. Please note that "you are an idiot" is uncivil, not vandalism. Do not flood AIV with non-vandal reports. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some types of personal attacks are vandalism though, such as page defacement. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard]] 

message: How recent does the final warning have to have been? I'm looking at an anon who has received T1, T3, and got a T4 three weeks ago, and in their very next edit (today) was back to vandalizing. Is three weeks not "recent"—especially with no edits in between? --Walor 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not generally how that works, no.  The point is to block the actual vandal.  With three weeks between edits, it's unlikely to be the same person so the warnings don't apply.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Depends. it could well be a school which has been out of session for a few weeks. It's not like we don't want to discourage vandals from vandalizing once a month.Gzuckier 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a lot of negatives!    —Wknight94 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After a recent "final warning" 

message: The WikiDefcon template was added earlier today and I don't think it's all that helpful.  The level is arbitrary and doesn't help AIV handling.  It's not like more admins show up just because it's level High or people have to report vandals differently.  My opinion is that it just adds clutter to an already packed header without any substantial benefit.  Thoughts about keeping or removing it? -- Gogo Dodo 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not particularly useful, no.  But personally, I'd go after all the stuff that's taking up the vertical space first.  I hate having to scroll down to see the actual reports.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should go too. Once trolls get wind of it they will start to play - increase the defcon! It will only do us harm to have it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd take it out as well, for what Theresa knott said. Just attracts vandals. Veinor (talk to me) 22:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd get rid of it too, but I'd also dump some of the other stuff grabbing vertical space. --Matthew 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiDefon 

message: I report repeat vandals; and what happens? My reports are dismissed because he has not vandalized in the last couple hours or it is from a school or whatever. You guys need to get some intestinal fortitude (in lieu of cruder language). BLOCK THESE BASTARDS! They are just going to keep vandalizing, if you do not. JRSpriggs 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to guess that you've been reporting IP addresses. In which case, the reason they haven't been blocked is because there is a good chance that that IP address will be used by completely different people in the next 24 hours, so, if the vandal is going to keep going, a block of an IP address they happened to use a few hours ago isn't going to stop them. If you were reporting registered users, then someone probably made a mistake and they should have been blocked. --Tango 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Lighten up. I've been blocking vandals for years. Trust me, they are not bastards they are kids. No need to get emotionally involved. There will always be more vandals, and we will always be able to cope with them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem (which should be obvious to all of us) is that I spend a significant fraction of my time on Wikipedia reverting vandalism. And much of the rest of my time here is checking to make sure that no vandalism occurred to one of the articles I watch or that someone else repaired it. The cost of fighting vandalism is a limiting factor on our ability to improve (or even preserve) Wikipedia. There has to be some way to transfer that cost back to the vandals or we will drown in a sea of vandalism. Theresa, you should not count the value of other editor's time so cheaply. Many people have quit editing because of this problem. JRSpriggs 09:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JRSpriggs, we appreciate the volunteer hours that you put in helping Wikipedia. If the particular task of reverting vandalism is wearing on you, do something more enjoyable for awhile. Others are here to pick up the slack. Overall your time spent helping Wikipedia needs to be a nice experience. You are the best person to make it that way by finding tasks that are enjoyable. Take care, FloNight 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response, it is not as simple as packing up and going to work on some other articles. I personally still feel disheartened and discouraged knowing that the value of my contributions to the 'pedia on whichever articles I'm working on is diminished by someone else who's busy vandalising or filling some other articles with unreferenced crap. Zunaid©Review me! 13:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing is, blocking an IP address that the vandal is no longer using doesn't reduce vandalism. It's more likely to reduce useful contributions. If we could make a serious impact on vandalism by blocking any IP address that has even vandalised, without harming Wikipedia, we would ban them all in an instant, but that just wouldn't work. --Tango 16:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Recently I have noticed a vandal making damage to the Kateřina Jacques page. The vandalism seems to be done by one anon, but his IP address is always different. It always starts 71.99..., but the rest of the address is different. Sometimes he can be recognized by adding insults (in English or Czech language) to the summary. Is there anything that can be done in such a case? Jan.Kamenicek 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can block the entire range. I've never done that before, though, so I'll let someone that knows what they're doing deal with it. I'm not awake enough to learn new things at the moment - time for bed soon. --Tango 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new thing is that my talk page was vandalized with vulgarisms in Czech language. I put some vandalism templates on his talk page, but he just laughed at me, because he knows he can change the address. It would be really great, if you could help. Jan.Kamenicek 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry a range block of the entire range would block way too many IP adresses. I only ever do blocks like that in absolute emergencies. Is he only vandalising the one article? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I was in a bold kinda mood so I just went ahead and dumped a whole load of stuff that no one ever reads anyway.I feel we should keep this page short and sweet. We could add a link to a help page so that if people want more instructions they can find them I suppose. What do you think? Have I gone too far? (or not far enough?) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theresa, I think we went in opposite directions.  I added a show/hide link on the page so we could get to the reports quicker.  You removed all of the content.  I'm not sure which is better.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can combine the two ideas.  I'll try that now.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think maybe you cut a little too much.  For example, I think the Editors and Only List Here sections are necessary.  Without instructions for new-to-AIV reporters, we're going get some malformed or under-warned reports (not that doesn't happen already).  The Admins and DoS sections might work well as a Show/Hide thing. -- Gogo Dodo 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK well I'm off to bed. I'm sure you'll do a grand job, but do try to remove the huge amount if instruction creep that's on the page. Nighty night Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I don't mind all the instruction.  No, it doesn't help us much, but they may help new folks.  All I cared about was being able to hide all that when I need to...  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I'm hoping that removing the instrictions will help. In my experience, most incorrect reports are the result of people ignoring the instructions that I left on the page rather than the ones I removed. I'm hoping that by keeping the instructions very short there is a greater chance that they will actually be read by a newbie. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't mind the slimmer look, but hated the color scheme, went back to one closer to the old one. — xaosflux Talk 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, it looks a lot better now without all the extra instructions at the top. Thanks a lot for the time you guys have put in. --Matthew 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: When is it appropriate to use the test4im template?  (You know, the one that says "this is the only warning you will receive".)  RedRollerskate 16:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When they make intentional vandalism to user pages/user talk pages, policies and guideline pages. There would be other examples as well. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Any time when you are absolutely sure the vandalism was in bad faith. If there is any possibility it was a genuine test, then you need to give them the usual warnings. I would suggest only using it in cases of particularly disruptive vandalism. --Tango 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to sound like an echo, but I use it whenever I run across someone who is making edits that, in no possible way, can be seen as good faith (vandalizing a bunch of unrelated articles with practically the same comment is a good example). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only warning?

message: The  User:Wol786 keeps on creating multiple articles, such as follows:
List of Rawalakotis and when this was put up for discussion he goes on to create Rawalakoti there is not difference between the articles.  Than he will keep on putting multiple pictures on article Rawalakot even when the pictures are exactly the same.  He wont even read his discussion page.  So someone please tell him to take care and not to do this.
Maybe the user does not understand the basic rules so needs to be explained
trueblood 03:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try sending him an e-mail. JRSpriggs 09:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User creating multiple articles 

message: Is this the right place to report persistent spammers? Tocharianne 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have been warned from  or  to , and they are still spamming, sure! -- ReyBrujo 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: An idea has been proposed several times to have HBC AIV helperbot automatically add and remove the backlog notice on WP:AIV.
Basically the current line:
: 
would be replaced with something like this:
: 
Where Limit would be the number of reports needed to set the backlog to on. The Autobacklog parameter could be set to Off(or anything but on/On) to temporarily disable autobacklog function. This way the use of the function can be determined by regular editing/consensus.
What do people think? Pending a consensus here to implement this idea, I will code it then request an expansion in my bots approval to cover this. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. I'm guessing the bot can be programmed to take it off also. I would suggest over 6 or 7 = backlog. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I can have it add it when it exceeds the AddLimit parameter, then remove it when it drops below the RemoveLimit parameter. Good idea. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Notifying users that there is a backlog is really a job for another bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have written the code to do this, I have made the request for approval: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot 2. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: It is now running, just as described above. I did some testing on a sandbox page and it seems to work fine. Now I just have to wait for a backlog to test it. If there is a problem with this new function you can change  to  to disable it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I've tried to adjust the explanatory comments in the header accordingly. We may want to put a permanent condensed version of the bot instructions in a messagebox at the top of this talk page. Sandstein 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I am thinking about creating a barnstar for users that frequently bring vandals to AIV. It has gotten a lot easier for us admins to deal with vandals, but it is just as much work for RC patrollers to revert, warn, report and track our many vandals. It is even worse without VandalProof working properly. What would you think of creating such an award? alphachimp 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the idea but I don't think it'll help much. If anything, it might even raise the number of poor reports we get here. -- Steel 00:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would much rather be removing poor reports than getting no reports at all. Anything that brings attention to vandal fighting or methods for stopping vandalism would seem pretty good to me. alphachimp 00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After being initally skeptical, alphachimp's last point has sold me, I think it's a great idea. --Matthew 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a great idea alpha. I support it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of criteria would you look at for the barnstar? Frequency of reports? Calibre of report (as in, how well the report explained the issue)? Amount of "successful" (for lack of a better word) reports? -Painezor TC 02:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is with any barnstar, the criteria is left up to the editor awarding said award. --210physicq (c) 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: As some of you have said above, those who are fighting vandalism are overwhelmed. I asked at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for semi-protection for Newton's laws of motion which had been being vandalized daily (or more often) by IP-vandals. Virtually all edits were either vandalism or attempts to revert that vandalism (it is a mature article). Fortunately, the request was granted on 12 January 2007 although it was said to be a marginal case. There has not been one act of vandalism since then. JRSpriggs 10:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a huge fan of page protection (semi- or complete) as a routine measure to fight vandalism. Every user starts as an anonymous user until they want to become more involved with the project. I'm not sure that it's worth the convenience in our lives to discourage someone who could have a lot to offer the project. --Matthew 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Semi-protection should be used if it isn't reasonable to revert all the vandalism. I haven't looked at the history, but from what you say, it sounds like a few edits a day at most - all it needs is a few people to put the article on their watchlist, and there's no problem. --Tango 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is contrary to wikipedia's long-term philosophy... that needs to be carefully weighed against the harm that vandalism causes. It's a delicate balance. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is true that I did not become a registered user until after I had been doing edits for a couple weeks as an unregistered user. However, vandalism is a major depressing factor and I think that we should not blindly stick to a one-sided approach. Whether we protect a page or not should depend on the situation of that page. JRSpriggs 07:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use semi-protection more often 

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

message: May I suggest that you read this :  (marxian subsection) and this  (obscure academic). This person is trying to undermine our work on articles about prominent geographers. I am not sure I should be posting this here but then where else? Zigzig20s 13:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest you bring this up at wikiproject geography. He's definitely not vandalising, and some of his points are acceptable (even if his tone is not). If he really thinks they aren't notable, he should open an AfD on one of the articles in question. I wouldn't assume bad faith on his part, though. yandman 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright...As you said his 'tone' is unacceptable. I still think those are prominent geographers - people may want to look them up. Anyway, I'll move to Wikiproject geography then, thank you for redirecting me. Zigzig20s 13:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  geography hater 

message: You may have noticed the bot stopped working for a little while, this was due to this edit. I returned it as I assumed it's removal was accidental. My bot skips till the line with --> so as to avoid being triggered by the template examples. Should this section need to be removed or changed, it would not be difficult at all to fix the bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It happened again (at 11PM-ish, not 10PM-ish as I stated in my edit summary - which one's the big hand and which one's the little hand again?) I've added a "reports below this line" comment in the hope that if anything gets deleted by accident that will, rather than the line containing the pattern the bot's looking for. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That fixed it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That problem will not happen again, I fixed it:  HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Hiccup 

message: I had a read through the responses to the sections above on the AIV Barnstar and reports of unwarned vandals. I am neither an admin nor a vandal patroller but I use this page occasionally when I see vandalism - normally on a page I'm watching. One thing that strikes me is that is would be be useful to give reporters feedback on their reports. You could design a template quite easily that says, either "Thanks for your report on User:xxx, they have been blocked" or "Thanks for your report on User:xxx, they cannot be blocked as they haven't been warned - please do not list them here until they have been warned first and reoffended". The feedback could then be given by the amdin doing the blocking (or even a BOT (??)). You needn't necessarily give feedback al the time, but it might be useful where the same users are persistently making false reports and could do with some "education" AndrewRT(Talk) 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At peak times it's often very difficult to read through the history and tell when your vandal hasn't been blocked, HighInBC's bot has made it easier by showing pretty clearly when someone is blocked, but its still tough to know if that vandal you thought was borderline got blocked or not. AndrewRT makes a great point in that for an average user it's nice to receive feedback on the vandals you report so you know when you're screwing up before you do it too much. (Hurrah! for closed loop systems!) --Matthew 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback to reporters 

message: Ok, instead of skipping down to the bottom of the comments on the AIV page as it did, the bot now simply ignores the username username. The bot should now continue working even if someone plays with the comments, as long as the example name in the instructions remains username. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you also should ignore the IP 127.0.0.1 :) →AzaToth 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small fix on bot 

message: Since I put in an on/off switch for the autobacklog function of HBC AIV helperbot I decided to put an on/off switch onto the remove blocked user function. Now you have turn each function of the bot on and off independently on each page it services by adjusting the parameter line. Anything that is not 'on'(case insensitive) will be seen as off. In the event of a malfunction, this would be an easier alternative to blocking the bot. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. I've summarised the bot syntax in a messagebox at the top, for newcomers. Sandstein 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New on/off switch for helperbot 

message: Occasionally, Shadowbot comes across a persistent spammer, who is then reported on IRC. Would it be appropriate if Shadowbot were to report spammers to the Bot Reported section along with AVB, or should I just create another page for this? Shadow1 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be appropriate to report it to the AVB page. VoABot also reports there. alphachimp 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then. Shadow1 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadowbot alerts 

message: I've been going through the history of this page and there seems to be a problem with the order in which things are actioned. Users are asked to add newer items at the bottom. Presumably this means that admins should start work at the top?? What seems to be happening at the moment is that the bottom ones are being actioned first, meaning that in busy times, the ones at the top take ages to be actioned. If you agree, should the instructions for admins be changed somewhere?AndrewRT(Talk) 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noooooooooooo! please keep the instructions simple. You cannot force people to use common sense via instructions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I take them in the order that seems most logical at the time. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Good point. -- KirinX 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of actioning 

message: A question. Is it vandalism to replace a picture of a tree in a tree taxobox with a picture of a bee. Or is User:Pollinator just having a little joke at my expense? See Eastern Redbud. You can answer here. I'll check back. OKtag 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not really appropriate but you should always assume good faith.  Give Pollinator a test1 now.  If s/he keeps doing it after being told to stop, then yes, it's vandalism.  RedRollerskate 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think sticking a template on an established user's talk page will come off as rude. I don't know what pollinator was up to, but I just reverted him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, all. OKtag 03:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, test1 isn't appropriate for established users - they clearly aren't experimenting. A handwritten message is probably best, asking what he was doing. --Tango 11:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Redbud

message: For all users: 
Remember to use the new user warning templates, which have gone through an extensive overhaul. The new templates may be found here. Please try to change over to the new templates.
For all administrators:
Please note the new blocking templates. Use  for a first block on an ID/IP,  for subsequent blocks that have a specific duration, and use  for indefinite blocks. Syntax for uw-block1 and uw-block2 are as follows:
 (sig=n allows you to place your signature outside of the box)
And for indefinite blocks:
 (sig=n allows you to place your signature outside of the box)
For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Cheers! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have to have pastel boxes in our block messages? I'd rather have a block message show up as normal text, without a pastel box, because it looks more like a normal talk page message, rather than an infobox. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally think there's nothing more m:instruction creep then telling us what exactly is to go in the block reason field. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't my decision to make -- don't shoot the messenger! Comments can be directed to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace or to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings, but if you want to use plain text, use it while you still can -- the old templates will be redirected within a few weeks if things go as planned. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: From WP:RFCN:
----
The HBC AIV helperbot said in its edit summary that this user was a "comment," and I don't understand why it said that. I think this User should be blocked for this very offensive Username. Acalamari 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, it cannot tell the difference between a report and a signature if you just wikilink to the name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't make sense. That user wasn't a vandal (not yet anyway), and I have reported other Users without that tag. Should I put the tag in, regardless if the User has an offensive Username or a vandal? Acalamari 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is true. However it is the current practice to use  or . I think that only usernames you believe to be made in bath faith should be reported there. I have always questioned the title of the vandal templates myself as lacking the good faith required for dealing with potential vandals. The short answer is yes use the  template for offensive usernames if you don't want the bot to remove them. You may wish to bring this up on the AIV talk page, I will certainly participate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting...I think a new template would be a good idea: one for Usernames. If the offensive Username was a vandal, it wouldn't matter which tag you would use, but if the User simply had an offensive Username, a Username tag would be very useful. Acalamari 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Well, it's within the boundaries set forth by the bot approval, and for absolutely 115% certain clearcut cases, sure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize my bot cannot tell how certainly clearcut the case is right? <grin>HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's up to the admins to block or remove non-clearcut cases from the page. :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I got a suggestion that the bot automatically remove duplicate entries. I thought about this and realized this would result in potentially new information being removed. So I thought duplicate entries could be converted into a comment of the first entry. So:
 
*  blah blah blah... ~~~~
*  bleh bleh bleh... ~~~~
*  Derpde derp de derp!... ~~~~
would turn into:
*  blah blah blah... ~~~~
*: Derpde derp de derp!... ~~~~ (duplicate report)
*  bleh bleh bleh... ~~~~
 
Any thoughts/opinions/suggestions? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that sounds good. --Deskana (request backup) 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks really good to me.  I've accidentally reported a user a second time (the IP numbers are difficult to scan when there's a backlog), so this would certainly help clean it up. -- Satori Son 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But instead of **, please use the correct *: :-) -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. It shouldn't probably point out that the comment is copied from another report, otherwise it will be confusing. "Moved from duplicate report: Derpde derp dep derp!..." maybe.--Tango 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good. I would have put it at the beginning, rather than the end, but I think that's just personal preference. Either works. --Tango 11:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea, it should streamline AIV even more.  Dar-Ape 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that my suggestion has been sufficiently markedly addressed, I hence give said implementation my  rubber stamp of approval. --210physicq (c) 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this too.  Duplicate reports clutter the page.  delldot | talk 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, it is on my list of things to do, will take it on when I have a few hours free. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible bot feature 

message: Hi. I left a note on a user's talk page asking her please to report IPvandals using  and logged-in user vandals with . (BTW, the commented instructions for that at the top of the main AIV page seem to be incomplete now.) The user told me that she uses vandalproof, which does the reporting automatically. But it reports IP users with the vandal template. We are curious whether it matters to admins. If so, what's the best course of action? I suppose one could just stop by AIV and minor edit the entries, but a revision to vandalproof sounds as if it might be a better option. Thanks for your input. MKoltnow 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, the main thing it affects is the AIV bot that incorrectly reports remaining items in the list, divided by IPs and users, because it uses the IPVandal and vandal templates to identify the users in the list. In addition, IPVandal has useful links (such as WHOIS). Therefore, I think it would be much better if you could incorporate both templates in the reporting. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I will continue to do so, and copy this text in for the other user on my talkpage. MKoltnow 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalproof and autoreporting 

message: Please could it be clarified what is the general consensus regarding reporting vandals to AIV if they have returned from a block, but not been issued with another warning since that time.  Naturally the user page will show at least one final warning prior to the block; is another 'final' waning necessary before they are reported again?  Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 12:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends how soon after the block expires they come back. If it is within a day for a short block, or a few days for a longer one, then just report them straight away. Otherwise, go through the usual steps (although, you can probably start with ). --Tango 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also depends on the nature of the IP. If it's a dynamic IP from an ISP, I tend to start anew (except that, depending on the nature of the IP, I might now use bv or test2 instead of test1). If it's a school IP with a long history of vandalism, I tend to be a lot less patient, and either issue an immediate bv or block them for a long time (thank goodness for the AO flag!). I think in the majority of cases, I would issue a bv and wait for more vandalism. I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to IP addresses for fear of hitting a bystander, but if once I'm reasonably certain the vandal is active and the IP address has a long history of vandalism, I tend to hit for longer, due to the AO flag. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism after returning from a block 

message: Argh... I'm sure you guys see it all the time, but I just removed six vandals in a row, all of whom either had warnings issued at the same time as they were reported here (ie, they hadn't edited since the last warning) or didn't have a warning at all. Is it now the habit of people to issue final warnings and report them to AIV without first checking to see if they vandalised first? --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I removed half a dozen where the "vandal" had been issued just a final warning (often only after one edit) and then reported. This must stop. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also noticed a lack of knowledge about the new user templates. And I have a minor related gripe. When I patrol recent changes, I revert the vandalism, then I go to the (ab)user's talk page to leave an appropriate note. I am somewhat annoyed to find someone has already left a note--and not necessarily the one I would have chosen. I don't want to step on another editor's toes, but I find it a bit rude. I typically like to use progressive warnings, as this thread suggests. I have been amazed at the number of times even a blatant vandal responds to uw-vandalism3 or something before the need to send it to AIV. So many editors  assume bad faith even before I would, and I'm incredibly cynical! I think a lot of vandals have no idea that their edits are trackable, so they think they can vandalise at will. Once they find out that a) someone is watching, and b) their changes have already been reverted, I think a lot of them just feel it's not worth the trouble. Others continue and end up blocked. I better get off my soapbox now, my legs are getting sore. MKoltnow 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalproof can revert & leave a message with one click.  Nothing will happen to the article if the edit has already been reverted, but the message will get left anyway. So, if the timing's awkward, VP users can be responsible for 'rude' warnings before yours, or additional warnings after yours.  I try to remove any 'extras' that I post, but I'm sure some get left.  Mr Stephen 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, there are many who simply revert vandalism without giving a warning. I've occasionally given warnings for reverts made by others, when it looked like they didn't bother - as has been mentioned here,  "somebody's watching you" often has salutory effect. Raymond Arritt 21:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: If it's not VandalProof, then it's the reporter. Maybe we need an education campaign or something to make sure these folks done send a final warning then go to AIV straightaway. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: precisely. I frequently come on AIV with a 8-10 IP backlog. It's somewhat ridiculous to run through the list and manually inspect whether each and every IP has been properly warned. I assume good faith on the part of the vandal fighters. Let's cut them some slack. They're maintaining Wikipedia one edit at a time. alphachimp 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean by that that you block reported vandals on the word of the reporter only and without checking for yourself? If so, you really need to stop doing that... Assume good faith, certainly, but don't assume they're infallible. --Tango 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do, after looking at their contributions. I can see whether or not they have been warned when I post the block message on their page. The block can then be adjusted or removed if sufficient warnings are not present. If someone is in the process of vandalizing wikipedia, it doesn't make sense to first spend time investigating whether procedural steps have been followed. alphachimp 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you have to load the talk page in order to edit it, so why not load it and check for warnings before you block, and then add the block notice? It takes a few seconds longer to actually read the page and saves you incorrectly blocking and having to unblock, which takes much longer. You really shouldn't be blocking people that haven't been warned. Also, if you're not reading the talk page first, you won't know if the IP is a school, for example, which would require a different kind of block. You'll also have no idea how long to block for. You really need to read the talk page in order to have any idea what actions needs to be taken. --Tango 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: School blocks can be tweaked after reading the talk page. It's usually fairly obvious whether or not a user has been warned or not. When there is some doubt (such as no recent vandalism), I don't hesitate to check their talk page. Schools don't receive a separate type of block. I block every IP as anon-only with account creation blocked. As for block length: it's almost always obvious from the bottom of Special:BlockIP. I'm not arguing against the value of reading a talk page. I'm just saying that at peak times with trusted vandal fighters, the step can be postponed. alphachimp 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am assuming good faith on the part of vandal fighters, and I'm not belittling their work. That's why I'm not admonishing them. Assuming good faith also means assuming that if you tell them about the right course of action, they will do it. I let a few people know, quite nicely (I think), that I removed reports because the IP hadn't edited after the final warning. Hopefully armed with this information, they will issue a final warning and not immediately report it to AIV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *I may be one of those who listed a "final warning" on a user talk page, and then listed the IP at AIV. The IP I noticed is this: 168.8.148.20. The AIV request was rejected since the IP had not vandalized within 12 hours (or 20 hours; I cannot remember). Perhaps a quick clarification of the time frame you expect for now in "the vandal is active now" guideline to editors would help. To me, the number of block warnings received by this IP, the pattern that when a block expires, the vandalism continues, and the fact that the IP vandalized within the last 24 hours feels like "now" to me. Please advise where this should have been reported so it would receive proper attention. It's not checkuser, since we apparently already know "who" it is (University System of Georgia). Must this be an AN/I request? Keesiewonder talk 10:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: **I think the danger with including such extra information are fears of m:instruction creep. Personally, I'm in favour of clarity, but I might be in the minority. However, the problem with being specific is that it really depends on the situation and nature of the IP address (is it static, dynamic, a school, government, AOL, do they use XFF, etc.). --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not suggesting that we add more parameters to anything. I would like to know where to properly report something like the IP I noticed. Clearly, according to the admin who took a look at it, it did not meet AIV. Where should/could the IP issue I noticed receive attention? Keesiewonder talk 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice your response. I think the best place for extra investigation is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This is a high volume page, but it often gets you good response from several admins, depending on the nature of your request. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gripe: People are issuing final warnings and reporting them here at the same time 

message: I reported 216.120.198.130, who was in the middle of a spree of vandalism. This user had the following template at the top of their talk page 
"This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning."
I reported this IP accordngly to AIV without adding another warning. the request was turned down with the reasoning that "No vandalism since last warning" - I assume another level 4 was needed after all in this situation - or is this incorrect? Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what that template is intended for. As far as I know, IP addresses always get at least one warning before being blocked (unless they've just come off a block), so the template is incorrect... --Tango 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I really don't like that template. I've been thinking of removing it outright from IP talk pages because it gives vandal reporters the wrong impression (and might be the reason for the whole slate of immediate AIV reports I've been seeing lately). It was likely created back when we didn't really have a way of dealing with IPs with a long history of vandalism. Now that we have the AO-only flag, there's no real need for a template advocating a block without warning. For example, I simply AO-block school IPs for a very long time if they have a long history of vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And another thing

message: I can't find it anymore, but didn't we used to have a user-page template to give a friendly education to users/editors on the warning/block process? (For use when we notice that someone has reverted vandalism but not warned the vandal.) - RJASE1 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We block them with , which transcludes onto the block message. On their talk page, we use  alphachimp 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean something along the lines of "Hi, thank you for cleaning up vandalism on (article). Did you know about our process for issuing warnings to vandals? This will help to prevent vandalism in the future" or some such message. - RJASE1 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would we benefit from teaching vandals about the process for issuing them warnings? alphachimp 15:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the message would be for someone fighting vandals who is not doing all the steps. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - for someone who is cleaning up vandalism but not warning vandals. - RJASE1 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification - I know we used to have a template like this but I can't find it anywhere now...recently I have seen a lot of well-meaning amateur cleaners edit-warring with vandals on an article, but the vandal doesn't get warned (probably because the good guy doesn't know how). On a related note, I know we also used to have a similar template for someone who only partially cleans up an article (i.e. a vandal hits a page four times in succession and the cleaner only undoes the last act of vandalism while leaving the first three.) - RJASE1 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Vandalism educational template? 

message: I am working on making the bot work well with another instance of itself. The idea being is that the bot can run in 2 or more locations at the same time, all sharing the load. Should one fail, like mine did last night do to a power cord being unplugged, the other(s) will continue.
I am testing this right now using 2 computers in my room, edits whose summary is preceded with a B: are done by the backup instance. Let me know if anything goes wrong. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could probably run the bot on the toolserver, that would increase the uptime to almost 100%. --Tango 11:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: As discussed previously here, I've created a template that can be used to educate users who make invalid reports here. Its at . Please feel free to reword if you can improve and I hope you find it useful. I've also added it in to the header. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Level 3 and bv warnings are also fine, since they also menion the possibility of a block. Perhaps use "final warning" and give examples of a final warning in the template (anything that mentions the possibility of a block could be construed as a "final warning"). I'll change the wording to read "final warning". --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good show, most useful. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much disagree and would be in favor of using this template extremely sparingly, if not deleting it outright.  It's similar to the reason that the Personal Attack Noticeboard had problems with just tagging a , as such a template would be more likely to inflame passions than anything.  If you want to make people who report vandalism - who are often currently pissed off at having an article they watch vandalized - feel like they get in trouble for it since they get a stern warning as a result, this is the way to do it.  It's patronizing and aggravating.  I'm not saying that submitters of invalid reports shouldn't be told why a reported user couldn't be blocked, but that can be done in a personal message, not a warning template.  I forget where it is, but there's an essay/guideline somewhere in the WP namespace explicitly suggesting that established users not have templates thrown at them, in general. SnowFire 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting reaction. Personally I am someone who reports here every now and then when I find vandalism on my watch pages - neither an admin nor a vandal patroller or whatever you call it. Most of the time, it is very hard to find out what happended to your report without wading through the huge history. I created the template because I personally would like feedback - including thank you where people have used the template correctly, and a nudge where they haven't. You're absolutely right that it should be done in a way that is extremely gentle and encourages people to continue reporting to AIV - hence why it starts with the words "Thank you". I'll try and reword the template to make sure the message is a positive one overall. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Well, as I note below, if this template makes interaction with invalid report submitters more common, then great.  It just strikes me that the current template is, if anything, over-complete.  To put things another way: people can be rankled when told things that (they think) they already know.  This template works fine for a first-time submitter perhaps to explain the whole process; however, I don't think it works when the submitter knows the process- or at least part of the process- and the problem was elsewhere.  For example, say there's an IP address that vandalized a lot 6 months ago, got the final warning sticker, then went silent.  Then it makes a new piece of minor vandalism, and someone submits it to AIV due to the 6-month old final warning template already being there.  In this case, the admin may be within their rights to not block and simply add another warning template; if that is done, the use of InvalidAIV is likely to rankle.  A short, tailored message explaining the thought process would be far better.  To put things another way, you could divide invalid AIV reports into two categories: "user knows the rules but is expecting an exception / misunderstands the facts of the case" and "user does not know the rules."  The template may be appropriate for the latter case (generally for non-odious vandalism), but it is not appropriate for the former case. SnowFire 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When a user posts to AIV, and it gets ignored that is not helpful the them. I don't think it is to stern at all, it simply explains how to get your report recognized. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course.  And in fairness, I know that admins can be stressed and busy, so if the choice is "leave a template" or "leave nothing at all," then the template is better.  But I maintain that even a single short sentence may be better than the template, if the admin is up for it. SnowFire 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to emphasise this point. I've made probably a dozen reports here and I have never had any feedback from any admins and never found out what happened to the report - if the user was blocked or the report rejected for whatever reason. It's not about admins being busy, feedback is something that simply never happens - and partly because it isn't proceduralised via templates and (eventually I hope) bots. It's like a big black hole that reports disappear into never to be seen again.... AndrewRT(Talk) 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried just keeping an eye on the history page? The edit summaries show all the blocks (reported by the helperbot) and any rejections are explained by the admins. If you want feedback, that's the place to look for it. Given the extremely high turnover rate of this page, I'd advise against anything that bogs down the admins. AIV is for stopping acute vandalism, not for user education. --Plek 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A comment from a user who is new to this: I've studied the  and I don't think I'd be as discouraged by it as I was by the summary removal of a listing because I hadn't posted warnings first.   — Athænara   ✉  01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to have a template or templates, it/they should be informative -- what can the reporter of vandalism do which he/she has not done? For example, if the vandalism is stale, then you should point him to who can deal with long-term vandalism. If the vandal has already been adequately warned for the offense, then suggest the reporter check whether a warning has already been given. etcetera. JRSpriggs 09:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected some spelling errors and made some wording changes to note how important vandal-fighting is. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, one other thing.  The InvalidAIV template is still in the "User Warnings" category.  I don't know if there's a way around that, but that's...  not a fortuitous name, since these messages should not be "warnings." SnowFire 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowfire, your right... it's not a policy par-say, but it is a procedure developed to help implement WP:AGF and WP:BITE in the vandal-fighting efforts. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, there is a link to the template thats being used in the next section.  It's at (this page's full name)/header. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  It just read slightly odd before saying "as per WP:VAND" when it wasn't actually there. ;-)  I certainly agree that as a rule of thumb, it's useful.  SnowFire 06:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm you have a point there. :) ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  InvalidAIV Template 

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

message: I would endorse a update to the HBC AIV helperbot link as there are now three of the same bot running together in different locations in the world. I would suggest the following edit on the header:
:*Current: # HBC AIV helperbot will remove blocked users from the list.
:*Update: # One of the HBC AIV helperbots will remove blocked users from the list.
Its just an idea/suggestion, if you want to keep it that way, I don't really see a problem. Thanks, Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 07:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIV Helperbots 

message: I have observed that many people report vandals but then fail to correct the vandalism. Because of this many vandals are blocked but continue to have their misinformation displayed on wikipedia.Cylonhunter 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm when I look at a vandal's contributions I'll usually rollback any recent edits with (Top). It doesn't really seem to be a major issue tho... ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. It's annoying to have to stop and revert vandalism after blocking, but it isn't difficult. --Tango 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly and yet there are some who forget.Cylonhunter 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Vandal Correction

message: Why has there been no admin action on this in over 30 minutes? 170.xxx is a repeat of the main page FA and I've left several notices here and on his talk page. Rlevse 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we are volunteers and not paid employees. :p ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of admins

message: Jewinabox (Contribs, talk) received a final warning on 1st of February. Today was his 1st vandalism since then (my userpage, a couple of hours ago.) If it was an anonymous ip address, I've been told that if the final warning was more than 12 hours ago, to issue a further warning. How much time is ppropriate for a registered user? Should I report it or issue another warning? - Belovedfreak 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a differences between anon and registered users. If a registered user shows a consistent patern of vandalism. Report them and leave a note on the WP:AIV entry that it may be a vandal only account. these accounts are often indef blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, however, I'd say the username alone fully justifies reporting the user. I've blocked indef. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Belovedfreak 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time since final warning

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

message: This is just one example of the IP addresses currently vandalizing Animal Face-Off. It seems to be the same person, but because the address changes constantly, he's difficult to keep track. I've tried to report him here but my report was just deleted, as his IP address had already changed. Dora Nichov 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 75.36.9.79

message: Found someone named "Sparklybubbles" had vandalized the Lucas Till page with homo-phobic crap, disturbing because Till is a minor. Reverted the page, but how can I report this person so he is put on notice? (just a suggestion - reporting this needs to be a far simplier procedure for us amateur, casual editors. I gave up trying to figure out what to do on the main article page here). RoyBatty42 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, add this under "User-reported":
*  — Hateful and slandering attacks on a minor's biography ~~~~
When you want to report another user, change the text between the "|" and "}}" to the username and change the explanation to whatever s/he's doing. 68.39.174.238 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The bot will now merge duplicate reports into one, by making subsequent reports a comment of the first. It should preserve the comments and signature/timestamp of the original report. If it screws up or causes a problem of some sort, disable it in the parameter string. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, now that's cool. I wish I could program like that... Cheers, PTO 13:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Valid point Rettetast, I will add that to the bot. It will say "(moved by bot)" after the end of the comment(after the sig). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Rettetast 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge duplicates bot function 

message: Take a look at this. It changed the comment as well as the tag. It's not urgent as it's only changing a comment. --Deskana (request backup) 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a patch for this issue that I'll get into the next revision of the bot, once I clear a couple of other questions up with HighInBC. —Krellis 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This fix has now been deployed in the live versions of the helperbot, so you shouldn't see this extra change again.  Please let us know if you do see it, or any other problems with the bots. —Krellis 18:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot is a little big bugged (not urgent) 

message: As a converse problem to that pointed out in section 6 (above), I have seen many incidents where (a) the proper warning templates have not been used, (b) where multiple acts of vandalism have resuloted in just one warning being issued, which compounds, (c) a lack of reporting on the page here when a final warning stage has been passed. Could something be done to advertise and make more clear the recommended actions that need to be taken when vandalism is detected?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the header on this project page and the information at WP:VAN make it pretty clear what should be done. The problem is that inexperienced users often make mistakes. --Ginkgo100talk 01:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm one of those who first tried reverting vandalism myself, then realised I might be obscuring the evidence as seen by anti-vandal bots, then began the WP:AIV learning curve—how to warn vandals, how to post here with a useful edit summary, what templates to use, etc.  It is a learning process.  Policy and procedure won't ever be satisfactory substitutes for the learning process.  — Athænara   ✉  20:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of consistency in editors' detection and reaction to vandalism

message: I have added a new function HBC AIV helper bot. It looks up each IP to see if it matches a list of special IP patterns. I have taken the patterns shown to admins on the block page as a starting point. See User:HBC AIV helperbot/Special IPs, my bot reads this list every 10 minutes. Feel free to add/suggest additions to this list. When the bot sees that an IP matches a pattern on this list it will post a comment like this. 
Please feel free to make comments/suggestions. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. I was watching you test it and it looks like a great idea. Kafziel Talk 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the bot "malfunction" your test? I was a bit confused why that was occurring because the IPs did not belong on your Special IP list. Nishkid64 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was actually a bug, which has now been fixed.  A regular expression got too greedy for its own good when some colons got into the descriptions of the blocks, and it mucked everything up. —Krellis 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Greedy greedy regular expressions! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the best feature I ever implemented was the individual on/off switches for the different features. It let me turn off the AutoMark function and still have the bot perform it's other jobs. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New bot function - AutoMark 

message: Can anyone help me? The following user/s keep vandalising the articles :Phil Mitchell, :Ben Mitchell (EastEnders) and :Sonia Fowler. However, I report them, they get blocked, and just create another account. Is there any way that they can be banned from creating new accounts?
Here are all the known incarnations of this user:
*
* - indefinite block
*
* - block expires 12 February
* - indefinite block
*
* - Indef blocked
*
*
*
*
*
-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thevandal is indefblocked... but I don't see that Lou22 has done anything worth blocking over... he blanked his own talkpage, but that's not really vandalism. Other then that I see what looks like a good-faith upload of an image and related edits. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this edit. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If the pages continue to receive a lot of vandalism from multiple IPs, you can request semi-protection at WP:RFP. At this point it doesn't look severe enough to warrant that. --Ginkgo100talk 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the user is being allowed to persistently create new accounts, and is now (it seems) vandalising because of a vendetta against me (See this edit summary). -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I indef blocked that user, but if this is an ongoing problem it would be best to report it at WP:ANI. --Ginkgo100talk 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reported it here. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: El_C wants to remove the section headers Bot-reported and User-reported. I think they should stay because it provides a direct link to the two sections. Without it there is no fast link to the bot report page, and all the reports are lumped together. I don't see the advantage to this change. He has made the suggestion that all bots bold their report, and that a separate link be made. I don't see how this does anything but make it more complicated for people trying to serve these reports to recognize and reach them. The current system makes it clear which is a bot and which is not, and when you click the edit button on the section heading you don't end up editing the whole page which is nice. Also, with the new idea all the bots need to be changed to bold their entries. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better in the header. It's much more out of the way, edit-wise, while the instructions remain clear for this seldom-used page. El_C 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean by that, what about the edit buttons that take you straight to the page in question, the one's beside every section heading? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't understand how you have it now, you have 2 Alerts headings, both top level, and you can't tell which is which. Are you half done, or is that how you wanted it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: What is the policy for dealing with a page that is persistently vandalized from what appears to be a single user coming from a range of IP addresses?  Leaving a warning on the talk page for the IP address would appear fruitless and even misleading, since that IP address may have been shared by any number of users who have done nothing wrong.  Should I list every offending IP address (3 so far) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism?  I've been reverting the changes but I don't see an end to this edit war.  What should my next step be? Duncow 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be appropriate to request semi-protection for the article.  You can do that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  In general, it never hurts to leave appropriate warnings on the user talk pages - you might just get through to the real user, and at least that way you can say you've tried to warn them. —Krellis 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple IP Addresses 

message: I just wanted to drop by and say thanks. The last few times I've posted vandals on this page, the list has been empty or nearly empty. Thanks for helping us vandal-fighters do our job. --Dweller 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  This time of day is usually very busy (I guess because school is in session or something) Dan D. Ric 14:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're coming into the peak "poop" time of day. Football (soccer) usually gets some good hits around now from American kids who think it's naff. There's also a sprinkling of "butt" and "gay" comments on school articles. --Dweller 14:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear page 

message: Just wanted to check whether or not it's appropiate for me to list 82.40.60.100. He / she keeps adding autograph sites, mostly to the :Brandon Lee article, about 8 edits since January. I've given the full spam warnings and they've added another one. Just wanted to check if it's ok to list them because of the frequency and the fact it's an anon ip. Definitely think it's the same person though. Thanks Belovedfreak 13:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked for 31 hours for spamming. Seeing as it appears to have been the same person over the past few days, they might be back, so I'll keep an eye on them. riana_dzasta 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much! Belovedfreak 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon spammer

message: Especially when dealing with IPs who seem to talk to themselves, put "___ WAS HERE", and do other similar edits, a WHOIS check never hurts. The  template has a link for it, or you can just use . Mark shared IPs with ,  or , and if blocking an educational institute you may want to use  as a block message.
Just saying. I've caught a few unmarked schools today who were previously blocked by other admins. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I eventually plan to make my bot put a note by reports that are in the sharedip or schoolip categories. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 12:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a quick note: the arin.net whois does not always refer to the other RIRs when needed, especially for APNIC. It's good to have apnic.net bookmarked for such cases. (I personally use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/nqt.php for my WHOIS searching. ) Essjay (Talk) 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I try to check any IP address that looks shared, before or after blocking -- frequently schools or companies, sometimes seems more dialup proxies and such. The school ones especially usually have a certain class of contribs -- I'd bet money you know what I mean, if you've looked a few times. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools and WHOIS 

message: Especially when dealing with IPs who seem to talk to themselves, put "___ WAS HERE", and do other similar edits, a WHOIS check never hurts. The  template has a link for it, or you can just use . Mark shared IPs with ,  or , and if blocking an educational institute you may want to use  as a block message.
Just saying. I've caught a few unmarked schools today who were previously blocked by other admins. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I eventually plan to make my bot put a note by reports that are in the sharedip or schoolip categories. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 12:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a quick note: the arin.net whois does not always refer to the other RIRs when needed, especially for APNIC. It's good to have apnic.net bookmarked for such cases. (I personally use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/nqt.php for my WHOIS searching. ) Essjay (Talk) 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I try to check any IP address that looks shared, before or after blocking -- frequently schools or companies, sometimes seems more dialup proxies and such. The school ones especially usually have a certain class of contribs -- I'd bet money you know what I mean, if you've looked a few times. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools and WHOIS 

message: Greetings!  I've been working on a new function for the HBC AIV helperbots, which will allow them to automatically fix the instructions block that sits in an HTML comment at the start of the User-reported section of AIV.  I understand that this feature has been requested a number of times, and I have seen plenty of cases where the instructions have been messed up by improper reporting while I've been working on the bots, so I know it is needed.  What I'm looking for is feedback on a slightly modified version of the instructions that I have come up with to use when this function is approved and goes live.  They can be seen and tweaked until everyone is happy at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/instructions.  To prevent vandals from being able to force the bots to place arbitrary text on the page, these instructions will need to be protected before we go live, so I felt it best to get consensus on them before that time.  The instructions are a bit more strongly worded than what is currently on the page, but I've attempted to strike an appropriate balance between getting correctly formatted results and not biting too hard.  All feedback and tweaks to the instructions are welcome, on the instructions, or on this feature itself. —Krellis (Talk) 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This function has been approved for testing and is currently in operation on HBC AIV helperbot3.  Please feel free to comment on the bot request for approval page, as well as here.  If the feature is causing problems, you can disable it by changing FixInstructions=On to FixInstructions=Off in the bot's parameter string at the top of WP:AIV. —Krellis (Talk) 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting Instructions 

message: I reported  for vandalism and the report was removed without anyone acting on it because they are not, currently, at this very second, vandalizing.  But they were vandalizing earlier today, have been vandalizing for several days, have been blocked once for the exact same behavior.  Why not block them so they won't come back when nobody is watching them and do it again?  Corvus cornix 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add a similar situation: . This IP address has been blocked three times, the last Feb. 16. The address was responsible for three clear vandal edits last night. I just noticed them this morning, but my report was dismissed because there was no "recent notice." The reason that I feel this incident should trigger a review of policy is one of the acts of vandalism I fixed today from this IP had gone undetected since Feb. 13. It involved changing dates and numbers in an article Vega program and could easily mislead a reader. I came upon it reading the article, not by following a vandalism trail. Other readers might not have picked up on the minor inconsistency I noticed.  If we keep giving someone with a clear pattern of vandalism the benefit of the doubt, sooner or later they will cause undetected damage. Vandalizing after blocks should result in a longer block without the need for additional warning, in my opinion. --agr 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't block IP addresses without warning because the person using any specific IP address can change. If there's a similar pattern that makes it clear the IP is static rather than dynamic, then we usually block for steadily increasing periods of time, but still only after warning unless the abuse coming from the IP is long-term and then there's usually a talk page message indicating that the IP may be blocked without warning.--Kchase T 10:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But the guy has been warned, many times, and has already been blocked once before.  The IP appears to be static, or at least only the one guy seems to be editing from it, because all of the edits have been these hoaxes.  Corvus cornix 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing a report without acting on it

message: Where an IP is reported and it has clearly become stale e.g. over an hour has ellapsed without further vandalism, is it acceptable for non-admins to remove to remove such reports. I just did so a minute ago, but it occurs to me that maybe I shouldn't have. What do people think? WjBscribe 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above.  I think the idea that a report becomes stale in an hour is ridiculous.  If you really believed that, then you'd never block for more than an hour.  If it's acceptable to block an IP for a day, then a report can't become stale in less than a day.  By refusing to act on a report, after editors have gone through the trouble of issuing repeated warnings, and have issued a final warning which has been ignored, you're telling those editors not to bother any more.  And you're telling the vandals that a "final warning" just means "take an hour's break and you'll be fine".  -- Zsero 14:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's fine, I just edit conflicted with you trying to clear the place out :) Well, I think it's fine... – riana_dzasta 11:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any reason why non-admins shouldn't remove stale reports. Obviously they shouldn't remove current reports, but I see nothing that suggests that old reports can't be removed. James086Talk 11:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say it's fine. It might be a good job for the helperbot, actually. It might be best to stick to removing IP addresses - registered users can be blocked even after they've stopped vandalising. --Tango 13:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, no suggestion named accounts should be removed. We know accounts are the same person and there's no collateral damage to other users in issue. WjBscribe 14:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I think you have just made the case for why IP users should not be allowed to edit. Buddhipriya 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'd be the first one to sign a petition for that. But it's not going to happen any time soon. Some people think anonymous editing is what makes Wikipedia great. It's certainly been tremendously more successful than other wikis that require registration. Vandalism is just part of the give and take. Kafziel Talk 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still stick by the statement I have made many times. You can always revert vandalism. The history will always be there. You can never revert a lost possible long term editor due to forced sign ups, blocks, or other reasons that would prevent it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see  for documentation of why that policy is no longer appropriate if Wikipedia is to move to the next level. I will withdraw from the thread as I understand this is not something to be settled here. Buddhipriya 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I filed this report (mostly because I wasn't sure where else to go) but it was removed with the only explanation coming in the edit summary: "too complex for AIV" Could someone help me out? The report follows:
* : Kinda long. I would like someone to monitor this situation. This user has continually inserted information about a non notable arcade into the DeKalb, Illinois article. Two editors have explained why it shouldn't be there, this action screams of an attempt to use the Wiki as an advertising service. After the explanation it was reinserted and a long screaming post appeared unsigned on my talk page from the user. The information first turned up about two weeks ago from anonymous , which was warned once. After the user Jazz reinserted the info I did give him a harsh warning. If someone could please monitor this situation I would appreciate it.A mcmurray 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Situations that are beyond obvious vandalism can be listed at WP:AN/I. — xaosflux Talk 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any help would be appreciated

message: , an admin who participates on WP:RFC/NAME, mentioned there:
:New - Optionally, if you block a name that is clearly vandalism or trolling, you can use .
I've moved the line off RFC/NAME because that page really isn't for discussing "grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames" -- these should be reported to WP:AIV instead. This is really not an RFC-related template. However, I've mentioned it to to the template-messages/user-talk-namespace and WikiProject-user-warnings talk pages, for fitting into the new standardized scheme -- so the template name might get changed.
BigDT comments: "The singular thing that I care about is that in some fashion, people who are obviously sockpuppets of banned users, individuals creating trolling usernames, etc, don't receive the standard  message that invites them to create a new account.  Whether the template is named unbv, uw-name4, whatever, and where the template is listed, I am really not picky one bit." (There was more discussion here.) -- Ben 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:UsernameBlocked-vandal 

message: Admins, please address this. Thanks. --Dweller 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog at this page 

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

message: Some user named User:Kgb23 posted an uw-vandalism4 warning on me. I don't plan on vandalizing so why'd he do that? --Addict 2006 22:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: kgb23 (talk • contribs) registered that ID just today and has been doing a lot of that—at least one other one seems to refer to you as well.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  01:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could there be a chance he's a well intentioned but woefully incompetent vandal fighter? Raymond Arritt 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hazard a guess that the probability of that is asymptotic to zero.  Note in the Bbb00723 talk page history that most of Kgb23's targets are users (admins or not) who have previously warned or chided Bbb00723 (talk • contribs).   — Æ. </font>  ✉  06:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. One of his first edits was to readd a template to BBB's userpage that had previously been removed by an admin. He then followed to tell others to stop vandalizing "his site", as BBB did. And he was specifically harassing those people who previous warned BBB himself. I've indef blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very appropriate, I'd say :-D   — Æ. </font>  ✉  08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok now I'm freaked out kinda 

message: Not sure who to tell, but a vandal (User:Fifa1234) uploaded an image over a good image at :Image:Zorro.jpg.  It's supposed to be a book cover, but they uploaded an anime picture of a character of the same name over it.  If you do fix it, you can revert my removal of the image from Zorro (novel) where the original was correct. - Peregrine Fisher 20:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not sure it was vandalism, maybe just an honest mistake.  They removed the image from where they had transcluded it.  It still needs to be rolled back, if that's even possible with images. - Peregrine Fisher 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you can find the version of the image you want below the image (you'll see all the people who have uploaded it etc.) and click the link that says "(rev)". Heimstern Läufer 20:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already reverted and posted an explanation on the user's talk page. Hopefully that will settle the problem. Kafziel Talk 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism image uploaded over correct image 

message: So, if a user's last warning was uw-test3 or 4 how many days have to pass before it resets to 1? In other words, if a user has gotten a first level warning and I see that the same person vandalized something the next day can a set the second level? After 3 days? 10? --Kimon 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know there isn't a requirement that you need to begin with level 1 every time. According to the template page level 1 assumes "good faith", level 2 assumes "no faith" and level 3 assumes "bad faith." So it's something of a judgement call.  I view standard juvenile vandalism usually as level 2, or level 1 if it could be interpreted as a genuine test. I have no problem going straight to level 3 for particularly vicious, racist vandalism.  Raymond Arritt 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. I was just using an example. But, the original question remains, is the escalation time-bound in any way? --Kimon 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Tricky question. I'd bet you twenty wikibucks no two editors will give you quite the same answer. :p In my case, if a shared IP address (say, a high school) has only bad edits, going back a month or more, on a regular basis (several times a week), then we don't need to bother waiting for somebody to pass t4. It's a drain on resources, and blocks are preventive, anyway (in this case, preventing needless damage and effort). If, on the other hand, the vandalism is more dispered, either over time or because there's some (maybe even any) good edits, I'm far more hesitant to block the same way. I'd say it also depends a bit on whether it seems to be the same person -- sometimes a person will come back and make the same sorts of edits, at the same pages, a few days later, and in those cases I'd still consider the prior warnings valid. So, um, it's tricky, I guess. I don't have a hard and fast decision rule, just yet. Not sure if anybody does. Good question, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started posting warning on users' talk pages I would the 24hr rule but, then I saw that the norm was several days. Then I posted an IP address to the AIV to be blocked (it had a t4 from 2 weeks ago) and it was rejected and I got a nice message on my talk page. So, that's what got me wondering. If I'm going to report vandals to be blocked, I want to do it in whatever parameters WP sets. --Kimon 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply that you would need to start all over each day or anything. It seems most admins (though as Luna said, this is not universal) would like to see at least one warning issued (and subsequently ignored) on the same day you report the vandal. Exactly how recent it needs to be depends on the admin. Kafziel Talk 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm fine with that Kafziel, I wasn't bothered, I just got curious. And it appears there isn't a consensus. You're right though that it was while since the last warning was posted (Feb 8th I believe), I went to the AIV since that last one was a t4 and it had to do with vandalism with malicious intent. I may have jumped the gun though. Oh well, lesson learned. I still think that a general rule of thumb should exist. A rule of "at least one warning must be posted within the last 24hrs" may be a good start for posting to the AIV. --Kimon 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if the IP hadn't made any vandalism edits in 2 weeks since receiving the warning, it's likely a block wouldn't have prevented any (as it may have been shared or the person simply wasn't coming to Wikipedia anymore). Blocks have to be timely and preventative, rather than punitive. Leebo86 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The other point I was trying to make was that an IP address isn't necessarily a single user, so an old warning might not be seen. Leebo86 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point --Kimon 20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that's why we do that. You also might want to see this thread from a couple of weeks ago, and this thread from a few days ago. They might not answer every question, but they'll better illustrate the feelings of various admins on the subject. Kafziel Talk 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For me, it depends largely on the nature of the user. I will count t3/t4 on a registered user even if it is fairly old, because we know it is the same person being warned. I need a more recent warning before blocking on an IP that appears static, since it is possible that it is actually a different user. For shared IPs, I only block if the final warning is quite recent because it is highly likely a new user is at the keyboard. On the other hand, if abuse from these shared IPs (such as school IPs) is chronic, I may block without a final warning at all. Those are my guidelines, but other admins do things differently. Like non-admin vandal fighers, we tend to rely on intuition, which may be imperfect but is better than rigid instruction creep. --Ginkgo100talk 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do warnings time-out?