Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 2

message: Givent the discussion above I may be wasting my time trying to help here, but could someone please block the above account? He was warned about vandalism last year, but has been back making some very obvious vandalistic edits, including an entirely fictious edit to 2006 in golf, which I edit regularly. If he isn't blocked, I will find it hard to see why I should bother to help out the admins in future. I agree with the complaints above that Wikipedia is far too soft, so admins should not be surprised if a lot of good editors can't be bothered to try to contribute to controlling it. INO the idea that we are here to write an encyclopedia as a distinct activity from providing a place for people to read an encyclopedia is a comical false distinction. Osomec 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:147.72.67.23

message: This user Special:Contributions/Havendutch vandalised after the blatant vandal warning template was added. I really cannot see any sensible reason why we should show mercy in cases such as this. Arniep 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't.  They are indefblocked by me. --Syrthiss 12:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, there seems to be uncertainty amongst others about this issue as User:JzG removed this user when I placed them on the main AIV page. I think we need to possibly change the wording of the main page so that it says it is OK to report people on this page if there has been vandalism shortly after a blatant vandal template has been added. Arniep 13:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its usually been up to the discretion of the admins viewing this page.  Some would think a  is out of place when its the first warning someone has been given.  I think from that user's first edit it was all downhill, so it was reasonable to me. --Syrthiss 13:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they had already vandalized 6 articles in quick succession so I thought bv would be OK in a case like that. Arniep 13:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what if this user decides to completely change his ways and apologizes to the community about his actions in the future? Is there a slight chance for him to be unblocked? Or is the real nature of an indefinite block lasting forever without any possibility of allowing this user to return back to Wikipedia BUT with having an experienced admin supervising his edits? --Siva1979Talk to me 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can always make a new account if they feel like making constructive edits. Then, if they behave well they won't get banned. Arniep 16:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant vandal account

message: Has been repeatedly warned up to test4, and anyway vandalised the Copernicus page  today. Is there any useful edit from this IP? I doubt it. Please block this IP. --Matthead 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:65.163.63.99|65.163.63.99]] 

message: According to the current version , it is. Obviously undetected, too many IP vandals busy there. Please sprotect Greece! --Matthead 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitol of Greece is Manama?! 

message: User:67.52.164.132 has made multiple vandal edits today. All of these contain various references that are considered hate speech by myself and many others. 
This user (and others with this practice) should be suspended immediately. If there is a concern about blocking a multiple user IP, then direct any attempt by this IP to connect to Wikipedia to the page that specifies the objectional postings. And let them sort out the problems on their end and then ask to be reinstated. -- Ryanjo 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he is a vandal, and yes, I will block him if he coninues. However, please post further notices of this type on the main page rather than here, in the talk. Snoutwood (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not reporting the guy here; I've already done the vandal tag tap dance. I am opening discussion that some types of vandalism are neither experimenting nor misplaced humor. Is a gay-minority-women-antisemite-etc basher treated the same as a vandal who (for example) puts his name in the list of US Presidents? -- Ryanjo 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate speech 

message: , repeat vandal of banned user vandalizing the same article with the same text. semi-static IP. suggest banning for a week or two. SchmuckyTheCat 14:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This request was removed with an edit summary "no recent warnings".  I posted that because this is a BANNED USER coming back from a semi-static IP.  They DO NOT NEED WARNINGS.  This user knows EXACTLY what they're doing and they've been doing it for months on end.  Why should any non-admin even bother to care anymore if their reports just get removed? SchmuckyTheCat 15:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could make it clearer by adding "banned user coming back from semi-static IP". Admins are not infallible. Please calm down. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 18:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No recent warning, WHO CARES?

message: User:Konob6, who's only "contribution" ever was blanking Ultrix, removed my warnings from his/her talk page twice, arguing that "vandelism is ok". Is this considered repeated vandalism? Qwertyus 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a blatant act of defiance, and in my dealings with vandalism I have always treated it as vandalism with no problem.  Do what you need to : )   ---Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal removed warning from their own page 

message: Does it look like the  template is going to be a lasting change? I just finished patching some problems with WP:VandalProof's Report to AIV function, and I'm wondering if I should incorporate the IPVandal template as well. I don't want to rework these routines and then have the IPVandal template deprecated the next week, but if it's going to become the new standard, I'd be glad to migrate it. Thoughts? AmiDaniel (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Vandal Template 

message: It's too bad I didn't see  this one go by my screen!  Bucketsofg✐ 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tempting, so very tempting 

message: LOL how did I get reported? - Adolphus79 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adolphus79 

message: It seems like the various places (ANI, here etc) make a big effort to discourage you reporting vandalism, but don't tell you where you can report it if you haven't warned them etc.
In this simple case, user  is adding spam to various pages. Probably with a couple of warnings he will stop, but someone still needs to clean it up. Where do I go to report vandalism/spam like that? Stevage 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, even before I was an admin I'd do the warnings myself with  etc and do the reverts myself.  Depending on how virulent the spam is, you can report them to aiv or ani for an admin to use their rollback...just state clearly that you felt it was an odd case that needed quick attention. Syrthiss 14:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to have a quick rollback function to revert thio sort of thing, you should get the Godmode-light user script, which you can find here.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to report simple vandalism? 

message: The Administrator intervention against vandalism is great, but sometimes it just isn't fast enough. I've seen many examples where  just pile on top of each other, and the vandal is still continuing. Is there any way to make it more efficient that what it's at now?—G.He 01:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you checked out Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit?  Likely the fastest way to get someone's attention is IRC.  If you don't want to use IRC, another high probability method would be to look at Special:Recentchanges and leave a message on the talk page of an admin who has recently done something, like deleted a page, protected a page, or reverted a change (although not everyone using the Reverted edits by ... edit summary are admins).  Another way to find a currently active admin is from the block log.  -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, there are probably some admins who one knows who edit many of the same articles. Just keep track of who they are and a glance at one's watchlist will often turn up an admin that you can put a message on their talk page. JoshuaZ 04:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  System not fast enough at times 

message: To repeat what several of the people above have said: WARNINGS ARE ONLY GOOD IF THE USER READS THEIR TALK PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Very few of the INTENTIONAL vandals read their talk pages and therefore BLOCKING IS THEIR WARNING!!! The two hour time limit is absolutely moronic and has no point in the real world. Just going to bed overnight would invalidate any offences!!!!  Reading the above comments, this is a major problem and not much is being done to solve the problem. There have been several instances of Wikipedia's lax control made public recently, do we WANT more? This really needs to discussed in depth someplace where it's not going to get lost in 200 other postings about other topics or archived next week because of length. I feel that there needs to be:
* a distinction made between false information (putting a new name in the list of presidents, to use the above example) and obscenities or racism
* change the timelimit to at least 24 hours 
* limit on number of warnings before blocking; I've seen many vandals with dozens of warnings and no blocks
* limits to number of blocks. I've seen vandals with a dozen or more blocks in only a month or two of use. And an increasing time span for blocking
* real teeth in the banning policy, even to the extent of notification of potential hate crimes in multi-user IPs (which are usually public-funded)
May I point out that a lot of these vandals are engaged in inserting (probably other) people's names in articles and if someone sees that their name is in something like "Mary Xxx is a whore" (to invent an example) Wikipedia or the IP provider may be open to a suit for LIBEL? Most of the worst of the vandals are doing their dirty work in a short time, like a day or two's lunch break. Perhaps a good antidote for this sort is requiring a 24 hour wait after first registering before editing? But please don't keep coming up with excuses NOT to even whack the little delinquents' knuckles. It just makes any rules impotent without some sort of accountability. CFLeon 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I 100% agree with CFLeon. I have been reprimanded by admins many times for trying to do the right thing in reporting blatanta and persistent vandals, but because they haven't had "sufficient warnings", my attempt to block has been quashed. The system needs to be overhauled so that established users get the benefit of the doubt over a blatant anonymous vandal. Just my 2 cents.--Zpb52 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Wikipedia works, in part, by not biting the newbies. We err on the side of caution with new users for a reason; to encourage people to contribute positively. I've seen several users start out as vandals only to become solid contributors over time. The vast, vast majority of vandalism is caught within 5 minutes. I've seen too many admins that knee-jerk block people simply because a user does one or two bad things. That's not a persistent vandal. Which would you rather do, block someone only to have them come back when the block expires or encourage them to become a positive contributor? The block route is the easy way out, but it's by far the least productive. --Durin 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken, but what about the ones who persistently and blatantly vandalize? --Zpb52 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *First vandalization, . Second, . Third, . Fourth, . Fifth, block. It's important to give them a chance. The first vandalization by many people is really a test, "Can I really edit this thing right now???". I see a number of these where people make a slight change, then change it right back...just to see if they could do it. Thus, test1 works. Test2 let's them know it's not a good idea to do that, and that it is vandalism. Test3 warns them they could be blocked, and test4 gives them a final warning. It's a good system, and it works. For my part, when I issue a test2, 3, or 4 I temporarily track the editor to see if they continue vandalizing. Many times, they just stop after test2 or test3 is applied. --Durin 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apples there and oranges here. Why is it that EVERYTIME a harsher penality for REPEAT, PERSISTANT vandals is mentioned, the only response is either "the first (second, third, etc.) is a freebee" or "we must be nice to the newbies"? THAT'S NOT THE POINT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Now is it clear?) I don't mind a new member testing the system; certainly some of my first edits (and even the ones I do now) may have been interpreted as vandalism by the person whose article I changed. That's how newbies learn and I have no basic problem with that. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE PERSISTANT, REPEAT VANDAL WITH MULTIPLE WARNINGS AND/OR BLOCKS. The ones who DON'T CARE about your generousity. What we are talking about are the vandals WHO REGULARLY delete articles, put in obscenities, racist remarks, or nonsense; NOT NEW USERS OR ONE-SHOTS!!!!!!!!! An important point in distingushing the difference is the time aspect: Has the user been registered for more than a couple of days? Have they edited before? ARE THERE A DOZEN OR MORE WARNINGS OR BLOCKS? This is the problem I'm talking about. (Sorry to shout, but it's the only way I can emphasize, underscoring not being allowed. If you still consider it shouting, then someone needs to turn their hearing aid on so they can hear what is actually said, then people wouldn't HAVE to shout.) CFLeon 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *When you're done yelling :), have a look below where I mentioned the  template. There's no point in yelling here. --Durin 00:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durin, do you bother to READ entirely the posts you respond to? I explained (and APOLOGIZED) for my "yelling" in my post (How ELSE can I emphasize since underscoring is not allowed????). "Yelling" or "Shouting" is DEFINED as "using capitalization AT LENGTH for no reason"; and NOT as capitalizing a word or short phrase for stressing purposes. (But hey, "if you don't like the message, complaint about the messenger's accent or the spelling.") And your earlier responses in this thread chose to ignore anything I actually said, rather making a decision to treat my topic as being a complaint against new people testing the system when it was most definately not! CFLeon 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've already given you an answer. Further explanation of why you feel it necessary to yell at me is rather unhelpful. I'm sorry you are apparently very, very disappointed with the utility of the  tag. However, that is the proper way to handle these matters. For registered users, increasingly longer blocks is the norm. In the case of accounts created simply to vandalize, some admins feel it appropriate to block them indefinitely. I do not, preferring instead to have increasingly longer blocks. Again, see my comments above as to why. --Durin 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the person that shouts so much. A schoolkid might wake up to warnings. On the other hand one wouldn't predict a spammer to listen, those aren't here for fun, merely to spam. Dr Zak 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I use test - test2 - test3 - test4 for testing. Testing is easy to tell apart from real vandalism. Any vandalism warrant a test2 - test3 - test4 . Serious vandalisms, like those with major cursings, sexual slurs, or any form of highly offensive terms, gets blatantvandal - test4. Blanking goes test2a - test3a - test4a. There is no set system in warnings, and you just have to use your own judgments in giving various tests. Olorin28 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To expand on Jesse's final bullet point, the primary project that I know of in this realm can be found at WP:ABUSE. It's a new project (it has been in existence for a little less than a month), but from what I've seen they're doing a great job. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings Useless

message: I reported User_talk:70.72.5.126 for vandalism, as he/she has been blocked twice and has vandalized three times since then, on the 17th and 18th. They were removed from the list because they hadn't done anything in the last 40 minutes, but I think this IP should be blocked for good, as they appear to be repeat offenders, even after many warnings. --Awiseman 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IPs, unless they are open proxies, are never permanently banned; we often have no way of knowing if it's the *same* person. --Durin 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok. Is there anything to do then? I hate to just sit around until they do something else. --Awiseman 22:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *IPs that have a persistent track record of vandalism, with little or no positive contributions and prior histories of being blocked, are often blocked relatively rapidly after vandalism continues. In such cases as this, it is often useful to place a  tag on the talk page for the IP. --Durin 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  70.72.5.126? 

message: On an issue unrelated to the above, I've found that someone has linked a lot of dinosaur entries to others. An example is Helopus, which is linked to Euhelopus. Now, this was done because Helopus was preoccupied, but this link makes it impossible to make an entry to the original Helopus, which is a bird. Others, such as Polyonax are historically important on their own; or just one opinion. My point is this system is making it impossible to put other points of view. CFLeon 23:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is really off topic for this page, but:  if you, for example, want to write an article specific to Helopus (and feel it's sufficiently different from Euhelopus to warrant that -- frankly I have no idea), all you need to do is click the link in the "Redirected from Helopus" line at the top of the page (after you're redirected).  You will then be able to edit the Helopus page, remove the redirect, and add whatever content you like.  --Rehcsif 04:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambigulation Extremes 

message: This user has continued vandalizing articles after they recieved their "last warning." I guess that means a block is warranted? Cosmos 11:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been blocked. Next time please post alerts on the main page rather than the talk page, where they'll be likely to get a faster response. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User_talk:217.60.78.38|217.60.78.38]]