Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 3

message: NO wonder there are so many vandals, this guy crudely vandalism 7 times in a few minutes and you don't block him GEEZ! You admins are way too nice to the vandals. Rlevse 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a final warning and will monitor. In the future, please only report vandals if they have received a  warning and have continued vandalizing within two hours of receiving that warning. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a  warning. Joelito (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: multiple vandalisms shouldn't require a test4.  Nip them in the bud. Rlevse 11:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 80.134.140.94

message: User has added identical spam to several articles. Have posted 4 level warning. Please help if he continues V. Joe 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please post this on the main page, not on the talk... - Adolphus79 07:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 70.81.94.157

message: ok... so call me a noob, but how exactly do you go about reporting a vandal to their ISP? I have had one user that has used several IPs over the last couple days to vandalise Stylus magazine... if you look at the history of that page, he/she/it is the one that is using the 84.6x.xxx.xxx IPs... please help? - Adolphus79 10:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Note that the range you provided is really wide, are you sure it's the same individual(s). The ISPs don't usually do much, but it is worth a try. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's the exact same text being added each time, with little quirps aimed towards other editors (read: me)... I realize the IP range I listed is huge, but it was easier than listing the 5 or 6 different IPs that he/she/it has been using... maybe I'll just let it go, if the ISPs aren't willing to do much... it's a RIPE user, so I would have to deal with an overseas (for me) ISP anyway... eh... maybe I'll just continue squashing it's vandalism... at least it's giving me a good laugh... - Adolphus79 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting vandal to ISP? 

message: Here's a situation that I haven't seen addressed (maybe it's gotten lost in the 50 or 60 pages of vandal reports). User:Circeus is repeatedly deleting any and all links to Crocdilian Online. The only comment made was a single one to linkspam, which I don't see as being even relevant. I've sent the first warning to him thinking it was just a page or two, but I've since discovered it's worse than I thought. Which is the appropriate template? CFLeon 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is now following me and reverting all of my recent edits, to the point of even reverting my spelling and clean-ups over ALL Crocodilian pages now. (Does Wiki recognize 'Web-Stalking'?) Previously, the user showed no interest in these pages and his user page has no indication of such interest. He has refused to address this issue on any Talk pages, instead sending me rude responses. This User will allow NO mention of this link, which is the major source on the web, WHATSOEVER. I have tried to get him to answer what he has against this link, but the only thing he ever said was something about "linkspam", which is irrelevant. This is the first time I've had repeated problems with another user and I'd like some help with this. I am not one who smiles when someone spits on me; if someone is rude to me, I respond in turn. I'd like to return this to being civilized, but he refuss to respond. Could someone help out? CFLeon 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really view this as vandalism, so this is probably not the appropriate venue.  But a response anyways: I've looked over Crocodilian Online and it does look like an appropriate link (it's on an .edu server in Florida, contains no ads, and is well referenced).  However, it is important that the articles of individual Crocodile species are linked to the relevant subpages on Crocodilian online.  I think this is the point that Circeus was trying to make.  If you link as suggested above, I don't think there will be a problem.  Thanks -- Samir   धर्म 06:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Deletions

message: User has apparently listed another user's password on his talk page, and claims to have "hacked" Wikipedia. I can remove the password from the talk page, but I guess it should be removed from the history as well?--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:MrPhillyTV]]

message: Regarding the vandalism by this IP, I'd like to point to a few of the edits that are not "inexperience" but actual changes in content that show the intent of this person's edits.
: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bond_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=58059988 - there is no evidence that the coach has ever been named "Burton".  The remainder of the edit is just verbage bloat to hide the false fact.
: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bond_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=58060508 - around the same time as the last edit, in a flurry of small changes often seen to confuse reverters, he falsely reversed the intent of this statement.
: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Characters_of_Negima_%2816-31%29&diff=next&oldid=58063539 - They are "brats" not "beasts" and if as per their added edits
 this looks a lot like  this...
then I'm loony.
Please keep this IP from hiding their nonsense edits among verbage bloat and correct wikification just to seem "knowledgable" but still end up damaging articles.  I ask that you reconsider your "don't bite the newbies" decision on this one. ju66l3r 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for going to the work of providing these diffs. In my own judgment, I'm going to give this anon the benefit of the doubt and assume that he or she is trying to improve the article; even if all of the above changes were incorrect, I don't see any clear-cut, obvious signs of malicious intent here — just poor judgment and a lack of understanding of the articles he or she is trying to contribute to. We'll see if this garners any other comments from other admins. Tijuana BrassE@ 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll defer to your experience on this one.  I have seen this style a few times in recent days (albeit not in the same IP range) where even more clearly malicious edits (like Bush-bashing or obscenity) were wrappered with thesaurus-style edits and innocent changes in attempts to bypass any bot reversion software. ju66l3r 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:201.19.151.125 

message: I am new to this, the notes I read here (in green ) said to post reports to the other page but it did not have a '+'  so I will attempt to post here.
This user appears to be be using a dynamic IP address.   I was unable to post a warning to their user page as I could not find one.
Using multiple IP searches located this user in nth qld cache of ISP westnet, interesting to note that other vandalism within the same article (but using different IP's) also point to the same area.  It appears as if one or two IP's are used by this person over a period of time before the IP's change (hence dynamic tag).  I am assuming it is the one person or persons.  This user has an interest in vandalising specific articles thus far.  Seeing that this user came back so quickly to vandalise the article after I had reverted 6 vandalism entries they had done,  I did not revert this last vandalism entry (a false external link) and instead have attempted to bring it to the attention of Admins re: vandalism.   The latest vandalism still requires reverting - 'Sneaky Vandalism' -  Bacmac 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to post the IPs if anything is to be done.--Andeh 00:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP 220.235.253.231,  IP 220.235.254.170  - "Sneaky Vandalism" 

message: I am quite new to this as I haven't come across too many vandals before. Now the user page appears to be deleted. Does that mean that the user has been blocked or...? Inge 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Comanche cph 

message: The instructions on WP:AIV say that a vandal should not be listed here if...
The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., not counting warnings from 2005).
This was added recently; however, 2005 seems quite far away already, and even a user who received the full range of test warnings, say, in April, would almost certainly not be blocked immediately today. Should we change that to something like "(i.e., within the last month)" (or week) ? Schutz 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to "within the last week". Schutz 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "recent" warning ? 

message: I'm sorry to bother you, but if I'm reading the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page correctly, it looks like you declined to put a block on User:142.22.186.12, a school in B.C., Canada:
:(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; 16:46 . . RadioKirk (Talk | contribs) (→Alerts - shared IP, gone, NOT EMPTY)
My concern is that in the last 24 hours, they've been on a spree, vandalizing all the pages below:
*20:25, 15 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Georgia Depression
*20:23, 15 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Submarine
*21:47, 14 June 2006 (hist) (diff) 2006 FIFA World Cup (?ffff=Round of 16=)
*21:45, 14 June 2006 (hist) (diff) 2006 FIFA World Cup (?Round of 16)
*20:39, 14 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Michael Vick (?NFL career)
*19:41, 14 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Edwin (clothing brand)
Times have been converted to UTC 
Is there some mechanism for getting the school to exercise some control? Also, why not block them? Kids could still see the pages -- they couldn't edit them without a user account. It seems reasonable to block this account.
I'm not trying to be the Wiki-boss, or someone fighting city hall, just a user trying to understand how Wikipedia deals with something like this. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism log above.
I will go place still another "last warning tag" on their talk page but if they read it, I have to think they'll just laugh -- they've had so many blocks and warnings.--A. B.  21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would simply suggest relisting it. Blocks are preventative measures, so if the vandalism has stopped temporarily there is no need to apply a block. Hope this clarifies you question somewhat. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism by 142.22.186.12/question about the blocking process

message: Some minor vandalism cases caused by 82.198.250.126 on the archetype page, the death penalty page and a few others. --Onias 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report 

message: I've been accused of vandalism:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.102.31.67 >.
I hereby request assistance with:
Clarifying what I had done.
Why I had.
Correcting the original problem,
of which I had complained.
Ensuring that this would be
less likely to recur.
Securing simpler methods for
ignorami, such as myself
[oxymoron: airhead], to
post comments, corrections,
et al.
Ensuring that persons would not
be accused of something that they
had not actually done.
Please, I do want each of these
to be responded to as separate
issues, in order to ensure that
the various elements do not
recur.
:I suspect it is because, as you just did here, you typed your comments with a ridiculously pointless amount of lines. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I see the issue. Your edit was to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Doppleganger. This is not a talk page. This is a page on a long-term vandal. If you want to discuss the page, use the discussion link. And please fix your formatting and whatnot. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it says "but you can write it!" for a reason. You can write it, right in that nice text box that the Wikipedia gives you that's under all of that text. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: that means that page does not yet exist... I, on behalf of the rest of Wikipedia, invite you to start that page, Be Bold, and make that first entry... but do please learn proper formatting, I invite you to read the welcome text I added to your personal talk page... - Adolphus79 05:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So, you don't see the text box under all that? I've even tried it without logging in, and after I click "Discussion" I do indeed see a textbox. In fact, even when logged off I just created the talk page. No need to accuse us of being "oppressive" when the issue has to do with your browser or something on your side. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It said "you can create it", and it meant it. As you can see, I created that talk page, without even logging in, and as easily as I am typing this comment right now. If I could do it, you can too. As for describing them as vandals: it isn't. The article uses their picture because it is a play on the word "Doppleganger", which is also the name of the vandal that the article is centered around. That's it. It's a play on words, not racism. Your "different types of racism" are completely nonsensical. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels has a picture of a car, but it's pretty sane not to assume that the car's name is "Willy on Wheels" and that it's a vandal. I also do not think that the two are actually disabled (explaining the odd arm positioning), as another image shows them with arms in a normal position. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  71.102.31.67 

message: On the other page, it describes them as
vandals.
I described three different sorts of
racism, each of which you ignore.
But, your webservers are in
Florida.  I wonder whether you are
in Floridahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
Chadcentral, where an inability
to perceive racism seems to be a
citizenship-requirement.
Please assist me to move the
photograph to a respectable
locale.
Please help me to get the
discussion-pages, comment-pages,
to work more simply.
The wiki-software should be
edited so that I,
& other ignorami, are not so
stuck.
The fact that it says that
I "can create it", does not
make it true. Advertizing does
not make what is advertized
the truth.  I am in
[Alta] California, where much
other fraudulent advertizing is
created.
Please assist me to move the
photograph to a respectable
locale.
Please help me to get the
discussion-pages, comment-pages,
to work more simply.
-------------------------------------------
:It said "you can create it", and it meant it. As you can see, I created that talk page, without even logging in, and as easily as I am typing this comment right now. If I could do it, you can too. As for describing them as vandals: it isn't. The article uses their picture because it is a play on the word "Doppleganger", which is also the name of the vandal that the article is centered around. That's it. It's a play on words, not racism. Your "different types of racism" are completely nonsensical. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels has a picture of a car, but it's pretty sane not to assume that the car's name is "Willy on Wheels" and that it's a vandal. I also do not think that the two are actually disabled (explaining the odd arm positioning), as another image shows them with arms in a normal position. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =============================

message: I've finally found someone to
move the photograph:
I removed the photograph in question. It's not really appropriate to illustrate a page about a vandal with people who are not vandals. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious: do they meet WP:BIO? If so, how? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that my reason for asking is simple: someone will delete the page unless you can justify its existance. You can read more on why in what the Wikipeda is not. Don't want you to have spent a lot of time making an article that ends up in the gutter because of this. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph removed 

message: This page is for discussing the AIAV page, nothing else. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse me but... 

message: Which page is for clarifying accusations, w/o evidence,...& improving disability-access??
&  deleting racism, other insults??
D. F. T. P.
:The talk page of the article in question is a good place to start. If that's not possible, the next best place is your own account. Go to Special:Userlogin and create one! It takes about 10 seconds and is totally free. You get a username of your choice (within reason), a user page to identify yourself and your Wikipedia interests, and a talk page for you and others to discuss things on.
:If that doesn't appeal to you, then you need to contact directly the person you are in dispute with. This can be on their talk page or by email (if they have it enabled).
:But, really, you need to stop talking here. This page has a specific function, and really isn't what you're looking for.
:Thanks and happy editing! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which page is for clarifying accusations, w/o evidence,...& improving disability-access?? 

message: Hi,
I think that we're getting a bit block-happy. See User:Refault, who received a 2-day block without a single warning template. - Richardcavell 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an indef troll block now, the user was removing warnings and carrying on...I didn't look too far into it though. Rx StrangeLove 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking 

message: Could we please have a link to Special:Ipblocklist on this page to make it easier for patrollers to determine if a ban has indeed been placed on a vandal? -- Netsnipe 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always check the block log from their contributions, but I'm not sure if that's as easy as you were hoping for. -- Natalya 13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah exactly, and also (as long as each person was listed properly here) there should be a link to that user's block log.  It is always more accurate than Special:ipblocklist, because it lists all blocks/unblocks, while that lists only the currently existant blocks.  --NicAgent 15:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a link to Special:Ipblocklist 

message: Where's the purge cache of page link? I can't seem to find it. Could anyone add it please?--Andeh 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-)--Andeh 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Moved it into the main header so it doesn't clog up the edit space.--Andeh 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Purge Cache Link? 

message: Sorry to bring up this arguement again, as I see it's been discussed a few times, but this has really been bothering me. Over the past few days the anonymous user 68.199.204.46 had been sporadically vandalizing articles. He had already been warned by test4 on the 22nd. He was added to this page three separate times, twice by me and a third time by Oscarthecat, all three of which were denied. The first time, done on the 23rd, the administrator didn't even bother to give a reason for not blocking him. The second time, done today, the administrator denied it due to lack of a recent warning. The third time, the administrator mistook the vandalism for a content dispute, but that's beside the point. Eventually, Mushroom saw his edits and blocked him himself. My point is that while his vandalism started back before June 22nd, it took until today for someone to finally block him. Why? Because he hadn't been "warned recently". I'm assuming that's the reason why he wasn't blocked the first time as well. Maybe someone could help elaborate the reasoning behind that to me, but personally, I don't think that makes any sense. If the user is warned with "This is your final warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." and then he or she vandalizes again and they don't get blocked, what kind of lesson is that teaching them? "This is your last warning. Seriously. At least until a few hours or so from now... then you can vandalize again." I just think admins need to stop worrying about when a vandal was given their "final warning". Geg 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: added just for ref purposes.--Andeh 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The vandal may have not been blocked by the admin because not ALL edits appeared to be blatent vandalism, instead some of them were adding wrong information. If you really believe that the user needs to be blocked just re-add the user to WP:AIV explaining the situation in more detail so any admins watching do make sure they need to be blocked. Also make sure to use good edit summaries so the admins know what's going on.--Andeh 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "recent warnings" thing just isn't working

message: User WilliamSmith made 3 vandalism edits on Donald Trump.  I am not sure if his other edit is vandalism becauase I do not know the topic, but it doesn't seem so.  I do not know how to check his warning history.  Also, the last edit on this page on June 26 seems odd and may be vandalism.  Tony The Tiger 02:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was vandalism, he's been warned by Ian Manka.--Andeh 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WilliamSmith on [[Donald Trump]]

message: I saw this term in the comments as I went to edit the AIV page and report a vandal. This type of vandal (CCV) sounds very dangerous, perhaps sneaking around and pouncing from above. What should I be looking for??
Thanks in advance for clarifying.
--A. B.  04:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a ceiling cat. Someone else can fill you in on the details of the Ceiling Cat Vandal (I'm only peripherally aware of them).  JDoorjam     Talk 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Ceiling Cat Vandal is a vandal that goes around with what seems to be a spambot, adding the same content to every article it hits (so named because the first content they inserted was a picture of the Ceiling Cat). While on its own it's not that big a problem, what really makes it dangerous is the fact that it comes from AOL, so its IP changes often. That means we can't effectively block it (and can't block it for more than a few hours anyway to avoid massive collateral damage to legit editors). --james // bornhj (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any kind of robot or program that can detect adding certain text, such as "ceiling_cat.jpg" and automatically revert changes? Flibirigit 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we deleted the image outright. TheProject 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's a "ceiling cat vandal"?

message: I blocked  about a week ago, with the block notice reading "vandalism; 22nd block; have your system administrator contact me" (taking a leaf out of Hall Monitor's book). Now, the supposed system administrator () contacted me on my talk page, but I suspect something strange is going on, as:
# The message left on my talk page has very poor grammar
# The account was created very recently (<1 day)
# The user's only contribution was to my talk page
An excerpt of their message:
"At our school we take these kind of issues seriously. We would like to explain to the vandal why it is not a good idea to vandalized the articles at Wikipedia.
Would you please provide any additional information about the vandalism. So our school is able to regain, editing access at wikipedia, and so we can ensure that this is not going to be an issue again in the future."
Should I just point them to the IP's contributions, and let them draw conclusions for themselves?
Any idea on how to approach this? Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask them to email you from an address that is clearly associated with the school's staff. They shouldn't have a problem with this if they are genuine. Oh and yeh, there's no harm in pointing to contribution history and block log. Petros471 17:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, my e-mail user link was in the block text. Eh, I'll do that. Thanks! Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do next... 

message: I've been visiting WP:AIV to combat the vandalism that the users listed may still be committing, and I've been seeing that user names that are email addresses are listed here every so often. Why is that? Is there a rule that forbids user names to be email addresses? Ryulong 08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered on users talk-page. Lectonar 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that bad usernames should be listed here. Using email addresses as a username is not "vandalism". --Woohookitty(meow) 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right of course, but the more appropriate page WP:AN/I is cluttered up anyway; do you think we would need a separate page for reporting bad usernames? Lectonar 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might not be a bad idea. There should be an easy place to put them. And you are right. AN/I and AN are cluttered already. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it could be a subpage of AIV, such as an AIV/U or its own page such as WP:AIIU or whatever sort of crazy abbreviation can come from "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention for inappropriate usernames" or some synonymous name. Ryulong 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll post to AN or AN/I and see what people think of the idea. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here we go. :) I think it's an excellent idea myself. There should be a place for non-admins to post usernames that violate policy. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User name can't be email address? 

message: Is there a particular need for this separate subpage? As has been pointed out occasionally, it probably isn't on as many watchlists as the main page, meaning it gets less attention.
The main reason I can see for it is that dealing with bot reports requires special care. It may actually be that the bot is more reliable than humans, since it never falsely reports NPOV issues and other disagreements as 'vandalism' - obviously that doesn't allow us to be complacent. As it's a bot and doesn't worry about how long it spends typing, why not have it post to the main page, but expand on the explanation a bit? Currently it just says "Has vandalised x times in 24 hours" - if we added "This report comes from a bot - please check every contribution and inform (whoever) if the bot is in error", we would still have that caveat. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, I suppose we could use  below the normal reports so that no-one has to configure the bot. Or you could do the opposite and re-configure the bot and make it only add to the normal report page. Iolakana|T 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we want to get a consensus on this, so I vote to merge.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the bot more likely to hit edit conflicts if it is adding to the main page?  That would be my main concern, having a report lost because the bot conflicted with someone manually adding a report to the much busier main page.  I'm also going to post a notice of this discussion to Tawker and Joshbuddy.  They may have other valid reasons why they designed the bots to post to a separate page from the main notice page. - TexasAndroid 14:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for it for the reasons that Samuel mentioned. I have TB2 on the WL but I know it often sits there unattended for hours and hours. But I have TexasAndroid's concern. I don't want the bot to have problems. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be any edit conflicts if it just edits its own section. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still will have edit conflicts, but I think something could be scripted in to have it try again if it conflicts.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be wonderful. I feel bad for our favorite bot sometimes. Poor ignored fella! Or. Fellas! lol --Woohookitty(meow) 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Templating/transcluding the bot page onto the bottom of the main page would be an interesting solution.  The bot page would need to be streamlined to mesh cleanly into the main page visually.  And anyone who wants to see the bot page's edits on their WL can still bookmark the bot page.  The main page gets enough traffic that this should give good visibility to the bot alerts, even if the people with only the main page on their WL don't get specific alerts for it.  And this solution would require no updates to the bots themselves. - TexasAndroid 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But while we're here, what WOULD we want to see from the bots warning messages? josh
buddy, talk 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would still prefer merging to the transcluding idea. Part of the point of this is that /TB2 isn't watchlisted as much as the main AIV page is, so if you have to watchlist /TB2 to see alerts, then no matter where it appears, there's still a problem. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for merging... Tawkerbot2 reminds me of T3-M4. Faithful and reliable. Unfortunately, TB2 doesn't have the same sense of humour. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Put a horizontabl bar, give it a section heading, and transclude it. — xaosflux Talk 03:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know anything about what the technical difficulties would be, but if it's reasonably do-able, I'd prefer that it would be merged. Otherwise, when I go to AIV, and block a user, I then have to go specially to the Tawkerbot page to remove that user, saying he's blocked. It would be easier if I could just go back to the page I came from. And, it would be easier if there were just one page for reports. I was also wondering if the heading "Alerts" in AIV should be changed to something like "Alerts from human editors" (if we're going to have a special bot section), or does that sound a bit silly? AnnH ♫ 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge of [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2]]

message: Why is it that vandals that have been tagged with this and then listed here are sometimes not blocked, but given a ? Several "only warnings" that I've given to destructive vandals were then given a final warning template, instead. Ryulong 04:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few admins feel uncomfortable blocking someone with just one notice, because of WP:AGF and all that. However, others don't, so it really depends on who gave them the test4, and perhaps they thought that the vandalism was severe, but not to the extent of a direct block. Titoxd(?!?) 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: An blatant is subjective, I've seen BV on some talks that I would have only used a test2-n or npa tag for. — xaosflux Talk 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:blatantvandal|blatantvandal]]}} 

message: There is a problem with the new layout.  Automatic reporting using VandalProof puts the reports at the bottom of the page - where Tawkerbots reports are meant to go (and where what looks like a temporary report on Rajput troll is).  This is not that big of a deal, but not so nice looking.--Konstable 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-ordered the sections to deal with this. Hopefully that Rajput section can go soon as it's making the page more confusing for reporters. I'm also not sure if tawkerbot will revert my edit to its section (depends how reports are added to it I guess). Petros471 14:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the Rajput section out as it's been over an hour since the last attack so the vandal is clearly out of IPs or out of energy. Easily restored. Page looks nice, Petros! ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that the user-made reports are at the bottom where as Tawkerbot's is on top? Coding work around?Ryulong 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We put Tawkerbot's reports at the bottom for a few hours. Reporters proceeded to add reports below, above, in, around and generally all over the place. Confusion reigned. So it was moved to the top, where it is "hidden" amongst the code. Confusion ended. So, whilst not being as logically laid out as some might like, for ease of use of the reporters and the clearing admins, it's best to go there. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Layout 

message: A little while ago, I posted the following notice:
* removes an AfD tag from Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (the only article this user has edited) after being warned by Byrgenwulf to stop removing content, on pain of immediate block.
This notice was then  removed by RadioKirk, with the edit summary "rm content dispute, try WP:DRV".  I thought the removal of an AfD tag during an ongoing discussion was an issue of conduct, not content.  (It's not a part of Wikipedia I delve into very frequently, so I may be mistaken about community practice here.  Nothing new about that!)  WP:DRV doesn't seem to address this type of complaint, either, since the article in question hasn't been deleted yet — it just seems to be going that way very rapidly.  Would anyone care to educate the naïve (me)?  Anville 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is vandalism - Avoidant vandalism - but the warning was misplaced on the user page instead of the user talk page, which might be the reason why Iq Prophet didn't receive the message yet. AZ t 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice removed for reason I don't quite grok