Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

Report removed without comment or action.

My report was removed without comment or any action being taken. What's the point of this board? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Report was improperly formatted and therefore accidentally removed by the bot (along with another, solved case), as obvious from the diff. Materialscientist (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

policy out of step with practice?

Policies are meant to reflect what most Wikipedians consider best practices, and I'm not sure, given the numerous discussions here at the WP:BLOCK talk page, that the blocking/AIV policy currently is representing what is done in actual practice:

  • Many users and admins do not seem to feel a full "four piece set" of warnings is needed in the case of a registered account, when we know it is the same person each time. Two warnings to stop seem sufficient to get the message across that they need to stop or they will be blocked.
  • Although ip accounts are treated more leniently due to the fact that they could be more than one person, that does not mean they should only be given short blocks. Although we don't generally do indef blocks on ips, some that are being used predominantly or in some cases exclusively for vandalism can be blocked for long periods of time (i.e. a year or more) if shorter blocks have failed to curb the problem. This seems especially true in the case of schools.

I'd like to collect some input on these points and possibly change the language at AIV to reflect these practices. After some thought, I have come around to a more hard-line view on these issues. People who are vandalizing know what they are doing is wrong. If a user inserts the word "poop" into an encyclopedic article, and they are warned for it, and they ignore the warning and do it again, they are making a tacit statement that they don't care and will continue to vandalize until we actually stop them. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I typically don't bother issuing warnings when reverting (I have a theory that it actually encourages, rather than discourages, further vandalism), but if I do, I usually start at 3L. –xenotalk 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • To Beeblebrox: sounds like "one-user editing" thoughts, which we never know for shared IPs. Sure, many IPs bring only vandalism, over extended period of time (years). I would support progressively extending blocks for those up to 1 yr (then repeats of 1 yr), but. Many shared IPs bring both petty vandalism and useful fact corrections, and those edits are either mixed up or separated in time. My experience leaves little room for generalization (unless there is a consensus to push such IPs to register).
  • To xeno: difficult point to me. On the one hand, I have much experience that one warning stops further vandalism (while it goes on without). On the other hand, I also saw many shared IPs getting infuriated by tags intended to other user or simply placed in error, just because the edit deleted something without a summary.
  • Let me raise another point. Consider an IP from United Arab Emirates or similar region, which does only vandalism. I was told we shouldn't block them anyway because there are only few ISPs in those countries. Thoughts? Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, so I can't block, but I tend to ignore Level One warnings unless it is obvious it was a mistake of some sort, a semi-harmless joke inserted into an article (I'm very slightly more lenient on those vandal than the ones who mindlessly swear everywhere) or if I'm feeling uncommonly generous. Most of my warnings start at either Levels Two or Three, depending on the vandalism and any previous warnings that look similar. I agree with Beeblebrox, however. Vandals know it is wrong. Why should we be lenient against those who destroy articles for "teh lulz"? If it's blatantly obvious that they're not going to be a decent contributor (and in my experience, it is usually), then warnings generally serve no purpose other than to alert admins to a git roaming around Wikipedia. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A few comments:
  1. However done, I think we would benefit from a toughening of these rules.
  2. We're schizophrenic on IPs. We treat them more leniently sometimes. But when we are looking to semi-protect an article, we ban them from it. That implies to me we think they are more likely to be vandals. If that's the case, it seems counterintuitive to treat them more mildly when it comes to blocks.
  3. Agree that obvious vandals know what they are doing, and should be contained more quickly.
  4. I've been chastised for starting at 3L. Is that permissible?
  5. Question -- what's the benefit to the project of people registering? If they are an IP, one benefit is that I sometimes (as just today) can discern a COI from the geolocate. I lose that w/the registered user.
  6. When dealing w/vandals, one comment I've seen is .. Ohmigosh, nobody was kind enough to welcome the vandal. How can we possibly be warning them, when we never welcomed them? That's so rude. So my question is -- If I need to also welcome a user to avoid being chastised for warning the vandal, why don't we simply have a bot invite every user?
  7. If you happen upon a user who has made four edits, each a vandal edit, are you allowed to leave them four warnings? Feedback I received recently was no. But I'm unclear what the basis is.
  8. When can I leave a "vandal" warning? Since it requires intent, and its difficult to know that, are we not guessing? Some editors seem to think it requires profanity or the like for me to give a vandal warning. But that's not what the wikipedia rule seems to say. Thoughts?
  9. I've run into situation where I see a repeat vandal edit, revert, warn, and then ask for a block -- only to be told that I've not given the editor a chance to mend his ways since my block one minute ago, so the admin won't block the vandal. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
To answer the ones I can:
  • Number four: It's permissible. Otherwise, what would be the point in having Level FourIm? The warning you give them is tied to the severity of the vandalism you discovered.
  • Number five: If we were to force people to register, we'd need an awful lot more Checkusers and people to deal with Usernames for administrator attention.
  • Number six: Not worth it to welcome every user. It'd suggest that, if something like this was ever seriously discussed, the bot welcomes all users who have a) made edits, b) not received a welcome already and c) not received any sort of vandalism message.
  • Number seven: Generally, I warn for what I discovered first. If there is vandalism after that but before I warned then I may given them a second warning. I'll also give them a warning for anything before what I discovered if it was severe enough.
  • Number eight: Vandals can take any shape or form, from inserting swearing, to blanking content, to legal threats, to obvious nonsense, to subtle stuff, like altering something from a rarely checked citation. If it's vandalism, warn away, regardless of what they did.
Hope that answers some of your questions. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Re number six: I read the question as why not have the bot welcome every user. Not an unreasonable question. Though a "you have new messages" welcome five seconds after registering might give some users the spooky sense they are being watched, it might on net be a good thing.LeadSongDog come howl 03:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, consensus can change, but a welcome bot is one of the proposals that have been repeatedly rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Damn it, sorry, typo. Now corrected. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • To answer some of your other points:Some types of vandalism do merit an only warning as the first step. If someone creates an attack page that is aimed at a specific individual, or inserts deliberate and slanderous errors into a biography of a living person, I think I am like most admins in that I will warn them once, and block if they do it just one more time. Less harmful "silly" type vandalism or creation of other types of inappropriate pages usually gets at least two chances. If the users ceases vandalizing after you have warned them, it's assumed the warnings worked, at least for the moment, and they usually won't be blocked unless they do it again. Usually "template bombing" in the form of multiple warnings is considered a bad thing, but if you leave them a low-level warning before checking their history, and then discover they have made numerous other vandal edits, I think it's ok to go back and "turn up the heat." Xeno makes an interesting point about warning encouraging them, but unless you are going to watch them forever, I think it's a good idea to leave a record on their talk page of previous problems, especially if you are not an admin and can't issue the block yourself if they keep doing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    My another observation: often level-1 warning doesn't work, but level-3 or 4 (red-colored) does. Thus IMO, block after level-1 warning, which is rather politely formulated, is not always warranted (depends on the act off course). Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Some more answers:

  • (2) Semi-protection is applied because no one has come up with a better way to deal with multiple IPs attacking the same article. The side-effects (stopping good faith edits) are unfortunate. However, because of the impersonal nature of semi-protection, it's much, much less BITEy than blocking. It's the difference between getting placed under arrest, and discovering a locked bathroom. Both prevent you from doing something you wanted to do, but you aren't likely to hold a grudge about the latter.
  • (4) I've started at level 2, 3, and 4 at times. I've never been chastised for it. Of course starting at level 3 for "hi my names john" or "LOL!!!" is overdoing things, but if an user or IP's only edit is to change [[puppy]] to [[autofellatio|puppy]] I have no problem starting with a level 4im.
  • (7) The basis I would imagine would be redundancy. If they don't get it after reading it the first time, why would they after reading the same message four times? Or do you mean issuing all four levels as a set? In that case, I would simply issue a single level 2, 3, or 4im, if appropriate.

Other rambling thoughts:

  • All 100+ warning templates really say the same thing: You are being watched.
  • The motivation behind vandalism varies from one user to the next. Some like the attention of warning templates, some don't. My wild-assed speculation, however, is that the majority would rather see their vandalism slip by unnoticed than get a warning template or three. If someone puts "John Doe is gay" into an article, their motivation is not to get the attention of an RC patroller, it is to embarrass John Doe. The template messages say "You plan is not going to work, stop wasting your time."
Agree. Or more to the point (I think), they don't want to be blocked (they want people other than the blocker/warner to read what they wrote), and we generally have to warn first to block them, so they on the whole can't be in favor of any tightening of the rules here.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Resetting warnings back to level 1 for registered accounts because 24 hours has passed is just plain silly, in my opinion. It's the same person, for FSM's sake. What, did they forget about all the old warnings?
Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • For IPs, it never hurts to check the contributions before you issue the warning. If they did the exact same thing to the exact same article last week (or month), it's very likely the same user, so why not issue a higher level warning?
Agree. Very much. Even if they did a similar thing -- to any article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions, anyone? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I have same observation that most vandals stop after realizing they are watched (level-1 or 2) and/or are about to be blocked (3 or 4 - for those with insensitive skin who think level-1 is given by a polite robot who will bear with them for ages). There are more and more fighters who know how WP works or have a "bitch fell off" attitude; they are still minority, but if let loose can do much damage single-handedly. Materialscientist (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate very much your, and everyone else's, input. As to your question, what I'm thinking of is the following -- I look at first edit, warn .. look at second edit, warn level 2, and so on. Which is what I did (not wanting to waste time by first looking at all edits, and then make a determination and go back and leave one or more warnings). My thought, perhaps wrong, was that when I just looked at the first edit, all it deserved was a level 1 warning. But the second edit indicated that it needed another warning. And so on.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, I tend to delete my first warning and replace it with the new one. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We are generally too mild with many vandals.

If the edit is obvious vandalism, and not a typo or misunderstanding of policy, then deal with them as deliberate vandals. No coddling. I have looked at the standard series of warning templates and conclude that the current series of vandalism templates not only has problems, they are actually counterproductive! They do more harm than good. Vandalism is one of our more serious and time consuming problems here, and yet we are sending the wrong signals to vandals. There needs to be a logical progression, and the threatened consequences need to be consistently and promptly enforced. The current series teaches vandals that they can get away with simple vandalism, because they are warned that this is the last warning (when it isn't), that they will be blocked (but they can continue several more times without it happening), that this is the only warning (when it isn't), and so forth. We are lying to them, and they aren't getting the message. Each message should count, and it doesn't.

I have several suggestions regarding text improvements and consistency in consequences:

  1. We currently have five levels, which is simply too many, especially when we really only have four different ones, since the last two are almost identical. When it's obvious and deliberate vandalism, even if not of the most malicious types (after all, Wikipedia isn't a playground), fewer warnings should do it.
  2. Any threatened consequence should happen after the warning has been given. No second chances. Therefore, be careful about giving warnings. Don't give a warning if it isn't going to happen as promised. That often means getting the immediate cooperation of an admin who will actually follow through.

I have created a series of alternate templates here, along with my reasoning:

Brangifer (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are interesting, but that last one is directly contrary to policy, what with the "do not return unless you are willing to create an account." Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That has now been changed, so don't let that lessen interest in a revamping of the warning template system. BTW, that isn't really against policy. We do that quite often to disruptive IPs, including vandals. Ordinary constructive IP editors aren't required to get an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your point about too many warnings, but there are two problems with how editors use the warning system. (1) lot of editors simply revert vandalism without leaving a warning, and without checking other recent contributions by the same account. (2) Some editors think you must always start with a level 1 warning. That's incorrect, IMO: use level 1 when there is any possibility of good faith, and use level 2 when there isn't. If the editor has clearly vandalised several articles before being detected, and the most recent vandalism is unequivocally severe (such as blanking a section and replacing it with an obscenity) I sometimes start with level 3 or higher. It isn't really a five-level system in practice: if an ongoing vandal has had three warnings for different articles over the same day or two, the admins at AIV will amost always block, in my experience. If the vandal has a history of recent blocks, admins may re-block vandals with little or no warning. - Pointillist (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as an admin who processes block requests at AIV nearly every day (and has performed over 3400 blocks to date), issue #1 that Pointillist brings up is, in my opinion, the biggest weakness in the anti-vandalism system. If vandals are warned after each of their unproductive edits are reverted, they can be blocked after ignoring just three or four levels of escalated warnings. With respect to Xeno above, if everyone does their part and issues appropriate warnings, this means that a vandal can be stopped after as few as just four or five edits. While some special situations (such as socks, BLPs, severe defamation requiring a 4im warning, or a high-speed vandalism/spam spree) call for blocking after fewer warnings, the fact remains that Wikipedia's official blocking policy generally requires that "before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with our policies and guidelines." As such, the duration that many admins (including me) are willing to block a vandal is often directly proportional to the amount of effort the Wikipedia community has made to educate the user. As an example, although each AIV request is handled individually, the general rule of thumb I use (except for special situations previously outlined) is that if a vandal ignores four properly issued levels of escalating warnings I typically block for 31 hours, ignoring three levels of warnings often results in a 24 - 31 hour block, and two levels of warnings rarely get more than a 12 hour block. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing makes vandal fighters more fed up than having their fair block requests dismissed. You in particular I find are too lenient and have not always responded to clear vandalism because the “correct” (in you opinion) number of warnings have not been given or because vandalism "isn’t current". Why not trust the vandal fighters more and the blantant IP vandals less? Leaky Caldron 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It is frustrating, isn't it? Mind you, as I recall the only time Kralizec! declined a request of mine, the vandal gave up anyway! - Pointillist (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Also not an admin, but I like your refinements, especially including the Welcome message in the first warning. A couple of points I'd like to make, though:
  • I'd go with three, rather than 2 (or 4) levels. The first one basically says "this is not for fun, cute lighthearted messages". The second is a true warning against malicious behaviour (can start with this depending on the edit), and the third is the final warning.
  • I will always put a warning on the talk page, unless one is already there that apparently hasn't been read yet. This isn't to notify the editor, necessarily, but to inform other "anti-vandalism" editors how bad the vandal really is.
  • I'd suggest putting the level (1, 2, 3, 3im, whatever system is chosen) in parentheses in the warning. This also tells others what level the vandal is "at" and can escalate appropriately, since some of the warnings are somewhat similar.
Just my two cents worth. -Me Three (talk to me) 15:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I like those changes, but the welcome message would have to be different for it to be useful. "Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay." Seriously? :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

<-- Thanks for the good comments. Keep in mind that this whole discussion is for people who are deliberate and obvious vandals. They already understand that what they are doing is wrong. This isn't the time to educate them about all the finesses of editing here. They aren't currently interested in serious editing.

I invite everyone who finds my trial templates worthy of development to come there and help me improve them. Then we can maybe make a formal attempt to replace the existing series. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IP editors as vandals

I'm not an admin but I have been a registered editor for quite a long time - I have over 300 pages on my watchlist on topics ranging from aviation to linguistics. I find that the assumption that all IPs are vandals until proven innocent is very useful - by that I mean I take a good look at all IP edits that appear on my watchlist. Unfortunately my assumption is proven correct far more often than not. I started a discussion about this issue some time ago at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Blocking_of_vandalism_only_accounts_and_IPs_is_far_too_slow_and_lenient perhaps the two discussions could be "merged"? I'd particularly appreciate some more opinions about my idea of making warnings (and blocks) easier to post / more automatic. OK this is probably more than 2c worth... Roger (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have nearly 4,000 pages on my watchlist, plus talk pages, and I always check IP edits. It's usually connected with vandalism. While not all IPs vandalize, nearly all vandalism is committed by IPs. When I see an IP edit, it's a big red flag that signals likely vandalism. I still haven't heard a good reason for allowing IP editing, nor a reason why we shouldn't require registration, and I've discussed this many times. Requiring registration doesn't prevent a single person from editing here. I don't advocate requiring it initially, but after a certain number of edits, maybe 200(?), registration should be required. After that it should only be in very exceptional circumstances that it should be allowed as a general practice. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1) That's a lot of pages. God bless you. 2) Is there a way to add warned users to my watchlist, so I can see automatically when they make their next edit (rather than going into their contributions to check)? 3) As to requiring registration, my feeling is -- it depends. Assume for a moment that all IPs register. It would not help. And it would hurt. We couldn't geolocate any longer, to see if there is coi, etc. And they would quickly think to create multiple accounts. If we assume that none of them register, then yes -- vandalism would decrease. I guess where in the middle the truth is would determine how helpful that approach would be.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding number two, no, sadly not that I'm aware of. You just have to obsessively watch them, so I only do it for the most extreme vandals. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've got my preferences set to automatically add every page I edit to my watchlist. That means I regularly go on pruning sprees and delete a whole lot of them, since I've obviously edited far more articles (25,000+ edits). That also means that pages that have been vandalized are on my watchlist for awhile, and those IPs often reappear. I check every IP edit for vandalism, and most of the time it really is vandalism. There are relatively few serious editors who edit from an IP, but there are some. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may respond to this entire thread - it's all a matter of personal preference. Do you like to AGF a bit more than the next guy? Then give another warning. Are you an admin that thinks we're too lenient on vandals? Then block a bit earlier or for a bit longer. As a whole, however, vandal-fighting is one of the least broken processes. Trying to get everyone to conform to a particular strict system will not work (and is a bad idea in the first place). As long as we all follow the general system, the process works fine as-is. Tan | 39 17:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tan--My thoughts, as those of most who have commented, is this is a process that needs fixing improvement. Vandalism hurts the project--anyone looking at an article that says "Go fuck yourself", or has incorrect information, has reason to think less of the project. And any subject whose bio is played with suffers as well. The system needs tightening to address this issues, and they are important ones at the core of the usefulness and appropriateness of wikipedia. It's also a needless waste of good editors' time for them to fight the vandals beyond what is reasonable, or go in themselves to mindlessly add welcome pages where a bot could do it instead. Furthermore, it's an easy fix. If we limit the number of warnings required before a block, or have an automatic welcome (to satisfy those admins who think a welcome ... in addition to x warnings ... is required before a block can be applied), we will improve the system with little effort.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, Epeefleche (in a most respectful way). In my experience, we will always have legions of vandal-fighters. It's just the way it is, and so far, I've seen no signs of vandal-fighter rank replacement slowing down. Most vandal-fighters aren't reverting vandalism in lieu of content work; it's all they do. Of course there are some high-profile exceptions with some especially proficient vandal-fighters, but the vast majority isn't "wasting time", no matter how many warnings are given. The human element needs to remain in place to retain the flexibility needed to deal with the variability of several parameters involved. Limiting the number of warnings before a block just puts more bureaucracy into place - the less rules here, the better. Common sense is the best policy here. Tan | 39 19:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Tan, consider this: I know a number of WP writers (myself included) who get dragged into vandal fighting by a simple chain: after I contributed to nnn articles, I obviously want to protect them from being vandalized. I end up in a situation that I can't write anymore because vandalism takes all my free time. Yes, we have an army, but this doesn't work in specialized areas. A sad and practical example: there are many thousands of chemical articles, which do get vandalized by schools. I can't even put all those articles on the watch list, and, ironically, I find out (when looking through contribution of a vsndal) that I indirectly protect those by blocking the schools. Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
How can anything "take up your free time" here? If you don't want to fight it, don't do it. If there's too much on one article that you're working on, go to WP:RFPP and have it protected. Saying that you get "trapped" into vandal fighting is ridiculous. Tan | 39 01:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You're missing the point - we can't semi-protect all articles, and I've got a backlash there too. Naturally, I have to check my watch list. Every day, I have horrible hours when I have to cleaning up vandalism, warning IPs and blocking them (even writing this is hard, as I see vandalism coming in parallel); then, around UTC 06:00-11:00 (weekends are better too), its getting calm and I can take my eye off the watchlist and do something constructive. Sure, I can say "burn it to hell", but it is simply counterproductive to spend hours on writing and have it ripped off in seconds - vandalism overwritten by further edits is hard to recover at times. Materialscientist (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You are missing my point that you are somehow being strongarmed into doing all this anti-vandal work. Take articles off your watchlist that you aren't actively working on, then. Tan | 39 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
We only have so much "free time" and would rather not see our hard work wasted by having to protect it, especially when we could reduce the need for protection if we concentrated more on preventing vandalism, than on fighting it. Wouldn't it be great if all editors could use most of their time on actual editing, and very few editors would use some of their time on fighting vandalism that can't be totally prevented by better protection levels (the ones we aren't using!)?-- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't trying to suggest that the process is "broken" at all. I think it works pretty well most of the time. I just think that the idea of a full on set of warnings, slowly ramping up as the user continues to vandalize, is somewhat dated and not the approach that many admins take anymore. The only point I had in starting this conversation was to determine if I was right in this belief, and to possibly tweak some policy language to reflect current practice, but it seems every time I open a thread like this it inevitably goes somewhere I hadn't intended. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche touches on a particularly thorny subject. If we are to tighten down on IP editing, better protecting BLPs is surely the place to start. I'd suggest that the four-step process should always be shortened for clear vandalism in BLPs. LeadSongDog come howl 19:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that editors engaged in clear vandalism deserve short process. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious why clear vandalism that involves profanity, racism, anti-gay slurs etc. isn't simply one-strike and you're out for a week. I know there are years of thought and experience behind the current policy but do people really think that those sorts of editors are likely to turn into good contributors in any short amount of time? A kid playing around adding "Kevin Rocks" to a page should probably get an immediate short block too as I find it hard to believe any time in the next 3 years he's likely to add anything useful. A short block allows him to learn a lesson and is unlikely to "scar" him from editing in the future. The worst edits are the insidious ones in which numbers and dates are slightly changed but it is often difficult to distinguish between good and bad faith. Escalating warnings for those sorts of edits seems appropriate. Not sure my two cents is worth anything as I do respect the body of experience behind the current policy but some vandalism really seems to deserve an immediate 24 hour block, no warning at all. BobKawanaka (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BobKawanaka, I appreciate your sense for a different approach. Dawnseeker2000 02:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Outreach to school network administrators

As a non-admin, I get the sense that there is little if any active outreach going on to the schools, which seem (at least to me) to be the source of most IP vandalism. We see blocks of individual IP addresses, with little serious consideration of addressing the entire school systematically with rangeblocks until the vandalism becomes a major problem. As schools more and more furnish shared wireless connections to student devices that roam within an IP range this one tool becomes more and more a uselessly blunt instrument for the purpose. I'd suggest that we can and should do better with some simple changes to gain some precision while reducing workload:

  1. When an IP talkpage is tagged as {{schoolip}} or {{sharedIPedu}} the adjoining active IPs should be automatically whois scanned to identify others registered to the same registrant. These should get the same tag applied. I'm sure a bot could make this job a snap.
  2. Longer blocks (perhaps 3 months or more?) should only be lifted when someone from the school signs up to be a contact for future vandalism issues, whether by email, by RSS feed, or by some other alternate mechanism.
  3. These contacts should receive encouragement to cooperate with technical means such as Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs to ensure that the culprits can be blocked without schoolblocks that affect the balance of students. The carrot might be to have the school's article (face it, sooner or later all schools are going to show WP:N somehow) annotated with a shiny infobox (or talkpage) icon to show that they are helping to build a vandal-resistant encyclopedia.

I'm sure other such simple measures have occured to editors here. Chime in. LeadSongDog come howl 05:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. We need to prevent vandalism. We're wasting lots of effort on fighting it, rather than spending a little time now to prevent it all the time in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll add my (non-admin) view too.
  1. I think it's good that the above proposal has very little expectation of school computer admins being involved ... most schools don't really have the expertise or staff to pay any attention to this ... in the above proposal, if a school does have the expertise and the will, they can work with wiki.
  2. I'm curious, again as a new guy, why so much consideration is given to school IPs. I fully understand that plenty of valuable edits come from anonymous IP edits, that's the way I first started editing. But I see alot of edits and RARELY is there anything of value coming from an anonymous editor from a school IP address. Consider the source, I have children, they're good guys, but honestly do they have anything to add to wiki that's constructive? They might have something to add about Super Mario (which is a valid edit) but they shouldn't be doing that from school and if they really want, they can do it with a username or do it from home.
I guess it boils down to, what is lost by being more aggressive on school IPs that exhibit vandalism? (rare is the time I see anything that isn't vandalism). BobKawanaka (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess. I put the tag on my school's IP address, and I reckon I'm the only kid who edits from school constructively. But I have my own username because I like having a watchlist and talk page. It wouldn't bother me if the IP addy was indef blocked... it would piss a couple of teachers off for not being able to edit the school's page, but that's it. They can make their own accounts. As long as it's a soft block there shouldn't be a problem. Singlish Speªker ♪♫ 23:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Any further commentary? LeadSongDog come howl 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've always felt we should soft-block school IPs on sight; doing this would almost literally cut the vandalism here in half. Most school IPs I've seen generally end up getting blocked for upwards of a year, and usually only after they've made a huge nuisance of themselves. I've rarely seen helpful edits from a school-IP that weren't vastly outnumbered by sheer vandalism. I think we should be more proactive: If you're a school-IP, you don't edit here unless you make an account. If you then use that account to vandalise, you never edit here again. 18:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As a school network administrator, I would like to chime in. In no particular order, here is what I am thinking.
  1. We first need to decide upon the goal. Specifically, is the goal to protect articles from IP vandals, or is it "to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with our policies and guidelines." Both have value. However, I fear that there is tension between these two goals. A number of good points have been made above for both goals, but until we decide which one has primacy, the conflict will remain a problem (full disclosure: if this was a vote I would endorse the latter).
  2. Auto-rangeblocking based upon a single address is problematic. In order to protect the network, we do not publicly register the CIDR blocks used by the individual school districts on our network. Given that the subnets that we use vary in size from /23 to /27, the addresses 10.1.2.30, 10.1.2.33, and 10.1.2.65 could be on three different networks. If the .30 and the .65 are both vandals, we would need to make sure that the auto-rangeblock does not unfairly block the school district using .33.
  3. How much outreach has there been to the school network administrators? The reason that I ask is that I queried the contacts listed at three other regional networks with /16 (class B) assignments, and none of them have ever been notified by WP. Interestingly, all expressed a willingness to help resolve problems originating from their networks. This leads to my next thought…
  4. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein (attributed) We have an army of people who vigilantly patrol, revert, and warn vandalism. This approach seems to work to some degree for non-school IPs, but not so much for school IPs, but let’s consider why the difference. First, many schools use either a NAT pool or a proxy for web access. What this means is that the student who vandalized the page may never see the “You have new messages (last change).” message, so they have no idea that there was a warning. The second difference is that if the warning occurs more than a few minutes after the vandalism, some other student may be at the keyboard, which means that the student who vandalized a page would not see the warning. The third difference is that they are kids, and as such do not always understand the full impact that their actions have. Which leads to my next thought…
  5. Do we have any material that can be provided to teachers so they can help student to understand the WP policies and guidelines? Schools in New York State are required to insure that students are technologically literate and should be able to “demonstrate understanding of ethics and safety issues in using electronic media and responsible use of technology” (see NYSED:P-16:Education Technology:Resources:Technology/Media/ICT Literacy). If teachers had such material and made WP part of their curriculum, it might help to address both goals.
That’s my two cents. --NERIC-Security (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for asking that last, Neric. It inspired me to find Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. I'll put up a notice there about this discussion.LeadSongDog come howl 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In my experience contacting the registered party for a net-range generally gets me a "What are you talking about?" reply. The tech-savvy who originally set it up have been long gone and have been replaced with people who can probably admin a Windows box but are generally clueless about networking. Q T C 22:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly noticeable how much vandalism in general drops when the schools go on holiday. If vandalism stayed at the current holiday level, then serious editors could almost cope with it. When the schoolchildren return, we're back to wasting our time policing articles and reverting vandalism. You can often tell when a topic is being taught on a school syllabus as you suddenly get a glut of vandalism on, say, the Second Boer War or the Battle of Verdun. I'd be inclined to let IP editors in general have a limit on their edits per week, which would cap school vandalism a bit but not so much the home editor. However, if there's a solution that targets schools, colleges, and universities specifically, I'd also welcome that. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to outreach with school network administrators, you might have a look at WP:ABUSE as it is very pertinent to this conversation. Cheers.   Thorncrag  19:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! How is it that we did not know about that page already? Thanks for the clue, Thorncrag. LeadSongDog come howl 05:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I can say that after reading this thread, it has got me thinking about ways that we can communicate with school's and be able to provide information to them. As the primary point-of-contact with school's in the area of abuse, we are in the right position to be able to do this.   Thorncrag  21:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Aye, WP:ABUSE is largely what this thread as been dancing around without even knowing it existed. WP:ABUSE has been going since 06 with the goal of contacting owners of IP's that are constantly getting blocked (such as school admins), however we are growing ever shorter of volunteers to do reports and email responsable organisations. At present, we are in the process of planning an interface to largely automate reports to organisations, untill that time we're stuck having to do everything manually. Anyone interested in helping out around Abuse Reponse is more than welcome to drop by, your help would be a god send.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I knew about the Abuse page, I've just never really seen a point to using it; most SP's replies basically equate to "Yeah? So?" HalfShadow 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot erased my report

Any idea what happened here? --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a race condition. Both your edit and the bot's were time stamped the same minute. LeadSongDog come howl 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How to report vandalism?

Not via IP address, but user. Blackmetalbaz is erasing good-faith genre's of music for singular sponsored review sites. Is there any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggl3sLimited (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I found it hard to work out how to report vandalism, and so, it seems, did Wiggl3sLimited, so "it's not just me".
I EVENTUALLY found the following, long after I'd given up and fudged what I hoped was "the right thing":
<!-- The following are examples of how to report a vandal on this page.
Please copy and paste an appropriate example to the very bottom of the page.
Anonymous Users (IP addresses):
* {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
Registered Users:
* {{Vandal|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
* {{Userlinks|username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
List begins BELOW this line -->
These instructions should be EASY to find, and in a prominent place.
I'd be bold and add them to the main page myself if I thought they'd remain there for more than 3 minutes ...
Pdfpdf (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these are excellent instructions and should be added to the page. WP is starting to have a problem with its bots. Bots should synchronize themselves with editor changes so race conditions never occur. Also, WP is too large to know where to report what (Village Pump, for example, doesn't always produce needed results).

I also agree that WP is too lenient on vandals, while being too lenient on fast deletion of articles that are in the process of being created. Deletions of any kind must be accompanied by a specific explanation. WP could, in general, be a lot friendlier than it is. We lose too many experts by applying WP policies to their work without being kind and explaining the policies well. David spector (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pdfpdf, it used to always flummox me when I got here and couldn't read how to actually file the report. Eventually I would either just abandon the attempt or decide to fake it, then realize once again that oh yeah, the instructions are in the page dangit! I've modified the /Header page to add a line pointing to where the instructions are. Does that make it any better? Franamax (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

When okay to skip warning levels?

I'm a new vandalism patroller. I've been using Twinkle, which has a reporting choice for "vandalism only account" or something like that, but when I use it to report here on non-IP accounts which have only been used for blatant vandalism, no action is often taken here except for a warning if there's been no warning issued. Some admin's only put on another low–level warning, others skip from no warning right to "last warning", and it doesn't seem to matter whether there's been one vandalism edit or eight or ten over a period of months. I can't see a rhyme or reason to what level of warning is needed or whether I can skip right to a last warning. Can somebody explain it to me? I'm not demanding that ever report I make end up in a ban, I can certainly issue warnings, but at what level? Help, please. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It mostly depends on the type and severity of the vandalism. If they're inserting racist diatribes about how all [insert ethnic minority here] should be [insert Nazi reference here], then a fairly quick block is usually coming forth. Review the block levels for a bit of clarification. Some users (and Huggle) will do a straight Level 1 to 4, no matter what. However, I based things off of the vandals contributions. Here's my understanding of what the warning levels mean.
  • Level 1 assumes good faith and asks "Hi, there. I notice that you may have been trying to improve this article, but you messed up a bit and violated a few of our policies. Here's the relevant ones. We have no problem with your intentions, but your edit just isn't suitable for Wikipedia in it's current state. Please read those links and have another go. :)"
  • Level 2 assumes no faith and says "Hi. You may have been trying to improve the article, but you came off as vandalising it. Here's a few policies explaining why I think that. Read them and try again."
  • Level 3 assumes bad faith, and is the first "warning" in my opinon, and says "Hello. You're a vandal. Here's why. Stop it."
  • Level 4 assumes a marginally higher level of bad faith and says "Hello. You're still doing it. Leave now or get blocked for any more transgressions."
  • Level 4im, however, assumes very bad faith (see the above diatribe sort of thing) and basically says "Piss off."
Those warning meanings have helped me to figure out what to do when patrolling for vandals. Hope that clears things up for you. If not, feel free to ask for more clarification. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You generally shouldn't bother with level one warnings in the case of vandalism; level one suggests an error on the user's part, whereas vandalism is, by definition, on purpose. I prefer to see it not so much as not assuming good faith, as saying 'I see what you're doing and we're not going to take it.' In the case of long-time vandalism (usually IPs (especially school-IPs), since any named account would have long since been banned), I base my warning on how many warnings they've had previous: if they have a warning list as long as my arm, I'll drop a 4 or even a 4im. I generally start at 2 and go up to 4, but as Jade Falcon says, it can depend on what the vandalism is, as well. HalfShadow 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
A level 3 or 4 warning is usually not a good one to start with, and if it's used for anything other than egregious vandalism (racism, bigotry, defamation, etc) many admins will basically ignore it. The same applies to a new user of a shared IP who may start off with an unconstructive edit. It is usually a good idea to tell them that there's a sandbox that they can mess about with (levels 1 or 2). If they ignore that then tell them that they might be blocked (levels 3 or 4). One warning of each type is normally sufficient. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much always start with level 2 unless its hate speech or the like then I jump right up to 4. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nice example. Vandalism reverted, no warning given to the vandal. I think that in this case the reverter should get a warning about failing to warn... DVdm (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement to warn, and indeed I sometimes don't warn on purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no requirement, and sometimes I don't warn either. But sometimes one should, and I think this was such a time. Ah, well :-) - DVdm (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
As a minor note, is there quick way to skip the level 1 warning with Huggle, or should I manually go to the user's talk page and apply the template myself? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Next to the revert and warn button is a drop down menu. Click it and click "advanced." That way, you can warn appropriately for severe stuff and also provide an edit summary if necessary. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It's nice when you ask a question and the very first response is exactly the answer you were looking for. Thanks! Throwaway85 (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome. I always like to help. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've often said that warnings bridge the gap between our need to assume good faith and our need to keep an orderly encyclopedia; some people stop or at least try to reform when asked nicely, others are going to keep being a problem no matter what we say or do. Once it's clear somebody falls in the latter category -- sometimes, as in cases of repeat sockpuppetry or organized harassment attempts, this is clear from the first edit -- I say block away. One's approach to warnings might bear that in mind. Of course, there's usually no harm in giving someone a few more chances; what's another rollback or two going to cost, anyway? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:70.184.39.164

70.184.39.164 (talk · contribs) is blocked for three months but continues to vandalize own user page. Can we please revoke user page priveleges also? Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 19:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple trips

Woah, multiple trips. All clearly the same person given how similar most of the edits are. I have blocked the only username among them as a vandal-only-account because I'm happy it is the same person. SGGH ping! 23:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Or is this a bug? So many reports of different IPs, but the target page has only one edit in its history... SGGH ping! 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice re multi-username entity

Hello all- I'm looking for advice on how to proceed regarding repeated one-issue edits from multiple usernames.

I think all these usernames might belong to one person:

This sort of thing passes the DUCK test, so the issue should be is it disruptive. It is not actually vandalism. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I guess the duck bit means you think it looks like these usernames are one person? I requested a sockpuppet investigation. Eric talk 14:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for a new vandal noticeboard?

AIV has traditionally been a place for immediate action against active vandals. More and more the board is getting clogged up with vandals or IP addresses who haven't been active for some hours or don't need immediate blocking. These reports can make this board quite unusable while real vandals continue rampaging. I've been wondering whether we should have another noticeboard to deal with real vandals who may actually need blocking, but not immediately. It could take away some of the congestion from this board, and prevent vandalism from users who might be thrown off this board for being inactive. Thoughts? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not block the proven IP vandals, whether they are currently active or not? Leaky Caldron 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Because while you're trying to find out which ones they are, there's a whole bunch of active vandals sitting on the same board actually vandalising. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Does seem like a good idea, this noticeboard has always had a lot of this sort of request. Hut 8.5 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"Currently active" depends on history (e.g. static or dynamic IP; vandal-only edits on shared IP or mixed edits). However. The spirit of AIV is to act quick and some controversial cases might get judged too quickly. One way is, after 1st revision, an admin moves them to another board (extra button on AIV board near every report). Another (current way), is to leave them at AIV board - I feel it is understood that if a user doesn't get blocked quickly then there is something needing consideration there, but I might be wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Don't understand "trying to find out which ones they are". I'll report them, you press your buttons. Simple. AGF in the vandal reports instead of giving vandals more chances to run amock later. Leaky Caldron 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to vandal reports, I follow the adage "trust but verify." The current RFA process assigns the admin bit only to those editors whom the community feels will correctly interpret and enforce both the lettre and spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Since vandal fighters do not have to go through any sort of vetting process, when they screw up and make a mistake, they typically do not get anything worse than a mild talk page rebuke. However when an admin screws up, they get dragged over the coals at AN/I or RfC, and if the mistake was serious enough, run the risk of being stripped of adminship. As such, many admins -including me- feel that who makes an AIV block request is irrevelant, as the report must stand 100% on the merits of the presented evidence, with administrators serving as blind justices. Put frankly, if the evidence is weak I am never going to block user Foo just because it was reported by vandal fighter JoeBob, and "JoeBob always knows what he is talking about." That is because if there is a mistake, I -as the blocking admin- am going to be the one to take the blame, not JoeBob. ArbCom decisions that hold admins fully responsible for their own administrative actions have only reinforced this point. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If only all reporters were as proficient as yourself. Sufficient warnings, active vandal adding "FUCK WIKIPEDIA" to pages, about to strike again, bosh - blocked, tagged, mass rollback, job done. I'm just trying to think of ways to filter out such reports from the ones that take time and don't need immediate blocking, so we can properly focus on how to minimise the damage. There's also a place, methinks, for reporting long term problem IPs for blocking, in particular static IPs or vandal accounts who are very likely to vandalise again, but perhaps not very recently. At the moment there is nowhere at all to report them, save WP:AN. Or if they're reported here it takes attention away from other vandals who do need prompt intervention. I'm sort of thinking out loud and probably not describing the problem or solutions well. Something like the holding pen at UAA might help. But at the moment this mixture of active vandals and non-urgent or content-dispute-like requests is allowing more damage than it ought, and from what I can tell, even turning some admins away from AIV. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with much you say. Also thinking out loud, maybe you and your more dilegent colleagues at AIV should have greater help from those admins. who prefer to pontificate over at the drama boards! Every admin. should have to meet a quota of vandal blocks.  ;) Leaky Caldron 09:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
When there are like 5-10 reports and only a couple of admins active here at that time, it takes a while to get to the actual blocking part because you're sifting through diffs. A lot of that is because many people don't know the exact purpose of AIV and incorrect cases get reported, thereby the priority ones get delayed. Rather than create a separate board, it maybe simpler to just add a third section in addition to Bot and User reported for vandals with last edits 15+ minutes prior to reporting. And perhaps, a big bold notice saying that the user reported section should only be for current vandals who are active. –SpacemanSpiff 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have more vandal-fighting admins, rather than another board that, remember, will need to be patrolled by the current crop of admins. Besides, I thought AN/I was, in part, for vandals who do not pose an immediate and ongoing threat to the project? Perhaps simply making that distinction more clear would solve some of the problems. Zzuuzz, what percentage of the unnecessary reports would you say are autoreports from Huggle? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case (AN/I for less immediate threats and here for block requests) then someone needs to publish that and educate The Masses. More than once I've come across an IP that has vandalized, after checking out other edits they made I find that they have vandalized over the last few edits, but they've gone for now. Where do I report that? Whom do I tell, as a concerned editor, that this IP may need watching over the next day or two to make sure they don't keep vandalizing? The way the system is setup, unless the vandal is a standard user that needs discussion and mentoring (AN/I) or is currently typing (here) there's nothing I know of to do. So if you are smart enough to restrict your vandalism to a few hours scattered throughout the day you are free to wander the halls and vandalize with little fear of blocking. In short, there is such a thing as an open and shut case. Padillah (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I certainly see your point, and low-grade IP vandalism isn't often well-received at AN/I. I'm just concerned that creating a new board would thin out the admin presence even further. Perhaps if some of the AIV admins felt like tapping some of the more experienced AIV contributors around here for an RfA? Granted I'm not fully versed in AIV's problems, but too few admins for the workload seems to be a perennial one. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep, you're probably right about another board spreading the admins even thinner, and they have probably been thin recently due to the excess of dramafests, though I do think there's probably a place for the IPs Padillah and I have mentioned. Somewhere in-between AIV/AN/ANI/ and WP:ABUSE. As long as it takes account of warnings for dynamic and shared IP addresses, a point often missed by people reporting here. I like the idea of an extra section - perhaps we can split the reports between those who have vandalised in the last half hour from the other active vandals. In reply to Throwaway85, Huggle and auto-incrementing warnings is responsible for some of the bad reports, I can't say how much, but I do very much like Huggle's "extending report" feature and it will always get as much of my attention as someone using a "NEEDS BLOCKING NOW!!!" edit summary. I also think we could use some more AIV admins, and I can probably help some of the AIV reporters with RfA, but it's never as simple as just tapping them. I might just go ahead and add myself to WP:ADMINCOACH - enquiries at my talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (undent) I got less active here because it seemed a lot of times like there were too many admins here, every time I tried to deal with a report, by the time I'd checked it out some other admin had beat me to the punch. Maybe it's just the time of day that I edit at, I don't know, but I'll put it back on my top priorities when I'm around if more help is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, time of day has a lot to do with it. I tend to patrol around 3:00am PST, when there's usually few admins here. The North American and European admins are inactive, and the Asian editors are just starting to get into it. I think that's why almost 80% of the edits I see are to Indian articles. If there were any Aussie vandal-fighter who were ready for the mop, that might help. Otherwise, it's very difficult (read: impossible) to schedule shifts on AIV. Sometimes there's too many, and sometimes there's not enough. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
One question I have is why, if a registered user is blatantly being disruptive and end up sitting around the AIV waiting room for hours without an edit, they won't get blocked because the report was stale? If it's a registered user, it belongs to one person, unlike an IP where it can belong to a thousand people (and if the account is used by more than one person, it'll get blocked anyway). So, if a user is being blatantly disruptive, why won't they get blocked even if it's been a few hours since they last edited? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Such users will in all probability be blocked, but if you were to report every such user here (say active in the last week), again this board would be less effective because it will be difficult to prioritise and block active vandals. This is probably one the main reasons people get thrown off this board without action during busy times. The question is, do we want this rapid-response board filled up with them, or would somewhere other section be better? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I would agree that it might spread people out even more and confuse others that aren't aware of the second board, but there are a few ways around that that I can see. If using Twinkle to report, perhaps a change can be made to it's coding that makes Twinkle check the timestamp on the reported user's latest contribution and it will choose where to report from that (say, anything above three hours old gets sent to a subsection of AIV specifically to deal with inactive vandals). On top of that (or just instead), perhaps there could be a constantly running bot that checks and rechecks every user currently reported to AIV and moves them around between the active and inactive sections based on the timestamps of their contributions. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be possible for a bot to tag a new report with information about the last time an IP/editor edited? Then possibly it could automatically move those over a certain time to either a new section, or the proposed second board.

Tagging would free up AIV admin's time to deal with those vandals that need dealing with now, rather than trawling through stale, or staleish, reports, and also ensure that people can carry on reporting without additional changes at the user end. GedUK  13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion tag for this page

I removed a deletion tag placed on this page, as I see no alternative to the page and am assuming this page has been tagged by a new user in error. If this deletion tag was valid, please provide some explanation here (Apologies if its me that's making the mistake). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has since been blocked for being a sockpuppet of a known vandal Clovis Sangrail

(talk) 11:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fake Account User:Bischof-Ralph

Hello from Germany, just an information: I am Admin in the German WP, the Account User:Bischof-Ralph is in German WP as de:Benutzer:Bischof-Ralph now infinite blocked. Greetings --NebMaatRe (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by fake? Fake article? AFD will take care of that. Materialscientist (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Chasewc91

User:Chasewc91

Sigh... please read up on what WP:VANDALISM is before reporting. Anyone who wishes to take a look at the history of several Hilary Duff pages (namely: Santa Claus Lane, Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album), Hilary Duff (album), and Dignity (album)) will clearly see that this is a content dispute, not vandalism. –Chase (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How many warnings ?

I don't know how many warnings they get, I do realize it's a school, but maybe it's time for the students to get a different/new lesson. At any lenght I thought an Admin. might want a look.User talk:167.93.70.250 Mlpearc (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Filter 139

The cyberwar has begun... I urge all humans not to get involved, but to sit back and let the bots destroy each other, then we can take back the planet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, it was User:Dr.K.'s signature that tripped the filter. I'm going to leave them a message about changing it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Filter 139 needs work, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The odd thing is it appears that this filter has not been changed in five days. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The bots have become sentient! Nefariousski (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the most annoying filters we have, I agree, but it is responsible for trapping some very critical vandalism attempts, such as an attempt to make Special:RecentChanges unviewable (which succeeded on Commons; you can ask some of the admins there for details). This filter used to be more lax, and the number of false positives has increased recently. I don't think it's possible to write a filter that will allow legitimate edits like these but trap edits like these, since there's no way to predict what kinds of things people are going to want to do. I think if it continues to trap up legitimate edits that perhaps the filter could be made to go to tag-only but we would want to have a bot of some sort (possibly Z-bot since it seems it's already doing it) to keep track of the hits because it is inconvenient to have to constantly refresh the filter's hit page. —Soap— 01:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
This actually is an unfortunate side-effect of something we had to do recently due to a distributed attack. The filter shouldn't catch this anymore. Sorry about that! (Also, in the future, if someone could let us know at WP:FALSEPOS that would be awesome &endash; I didn't know until Soap commented on the talk here.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I got dinged by this, and I wasn't using fixed positioning; I *was* using relative and absolute positioning. I see that it was the absolute that that triggered this. I also see that Soap said that someone is using fixed in a template is a good way and would like a pointer at that. There is a lot of good that can be done with rel/abs positioning and any filter that prohibits that will have to fall. Sure, that vandals use positioning (and especially fixed), but we can't let that drive what we do and allow. After all, vandals use text and images, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The filter can be put in a "log only" mode that will allow it to still track every edit, but those making the edits won't be prevented from making the edits and won't even see a notice that the filter has caught them. Then, if I understand correctly, a bot such as Z-Bot could still go through the edits that the filter caught and we could sort through them to see which (if any) were vandalism. I think that would be a better alternative to disabling the filter entirely, though I dont think anyone should act just yet without more input from other people (other than a small fix I made just now which was overlooked earlier, but which would have no effect on any edits). —Soap— 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Just as an addition, I got caught by this filter trying to add an absolutely positioned element within a div (which is not inherently vandalistic, and is a useful CSS trick). is there a way to enable that without causing other problems? the regex would be a of a bear, granted. --Ludwigs2 01:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin question

What does this mean? I understand only the "blocked" part.

blocked, tagged, mass rollback

David Spector 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

tagged means a standard blocking template was posted at the user talk page, mass rollbacked means all edits of that user were reverted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! David Spector

Could not edit this list

I'm only an ordinary editor. I fixed some vandalism, then tried twice to add an entry to this page. In both cases, the change shows up in the page history, but the page is not actually changed. I give up. If anyone wants to add this, be my guest:

Bot might delete your posts which didn't comply with the standards (accidentally, while removing completed threads). That user had one edit only - not enough for a block. Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! David Spector
That is only one of the annoying disfunctionalities of this process. It has become nearly impossible to manually add a user-generated entry without edit conflicts. I hate to think what it would be like for someone with wp:ACCESSIBILITY issues or on a dialup connection. There ought to be separate areas for this, so that humans don't have to race bots or scripts editing the same section. Note that I'm not talking about two editors after the same vandal, but different vandals. This morning I had three successive edit conflicts even though for the second and third all I was trying to type was 1. click on "edit", 2. Ctl-v, 3.editsummary, 4. click on "save". Total time under five seconds.User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There are two different sets of bots working here. One bot reports possible vandals to a separate subpage, so there aren't any edit conflicts with it. The other bots add relevant comments to reports and remove reports for users and IPs that have been blocked, so there really isn't a way to segregate the edits. The only solution I can imagine would be to throttle the bot's edits to a lower rate. —DoRD (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it isn't the bots then, just javascript gadgets and the like. Still, is there any reason there couldn't be several user-submission sections, even with arbitrary "pick any one of the following five" separations? That should reduce the collision rate.User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It'll be the bots who organise it more than the hugglers like me, from what I've seen reloading my watchlist. SS✞(Kay) 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

98.191.224.19

98.191.224.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Can prevent this blocked user from vandalizing their own talk page please. Dawnseeker2000 06:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI and the helper bot being logged out

Just FYI, the helperbot appears to be editing AIV while logged out and thus it appears like an IP is removing notices. I believe operator has been informed. SGGH ping! 14:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:UAA says that AIV helper bot's owner has retired. SGGH ping! 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot complaint... again...

Okay, short version. I reported 217.44.184.237 (talk · contribs) here: [1]. Then it gets cleared out along with a blocked vandal here, by AIV helperbot 7. (Good lord, how many of these things do we have?)

So why did it clear out an unblocked vandal along with the blocked one? ALI nom nom 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, 217.44.184.237 (talk · contribs) was blocked at 18:29. Perhaps your trigger finger's just a bit itchy? User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No, if you look at the edits I reported them at 18:25. The bot cleared it out during the same minute. (I posted this after the whole issue was resolved. I just wanted to know why.) ALI nom nom 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Spam on Utah

The past several days has seen one IP user and two newly registered users add the same travel destinations link to the Utah article. The link is a low-quality one: http://www.top10traveldestinations.org/utah.html

The IP user started the whole ruckus and was reverted by a known registered user. Today the registered accounts came into play. I believe they're all the same person. The edits have sometimes been accompanied my misleading edit summaries. Dawnseeker2000 05:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandalism a week after a final warning

I'm not sure what the best option is for 210.54.239.196 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) who has vandalised Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (in a rather minor way) a week after a final warning.

Is there a better forum for this sort of query? The instructions at the top of the article say it is only for clear and current vandalism, but there is not really another page to discuss non-long term vandalism.

Mark Hurd (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a dynamic IP. The vandalism looks very different. I'd restart warnings with level 1 or level 2. -- Flyguy649 talk 05:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough: I'll use a level 2. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Newly blocked anonymous user

This ip was just blocked for 31 hours. That's fine I guess, but this user has been engaging in persistent vandalism and this is the fourth block in just the last two months. Should this block be extended further? Dawnseeker2000 01:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

Just a heads-up that BBC presenter Jim Hawkins is again:

Anyone following me a Wikipedia 'editor'? Can you think of something outlandish and improbable to post on the page about me? If so: go ahead

and again asking people to vandalise our article about him. I've just reverted an edit by one of them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this has been reported at ANI - no point in merging the two. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw this, reported it at ANI with a link here, went to look at the article history and talk page and came back here to say I'd mentioned it at ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting giddy... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I just went back to ANI to see if someone else had reported it, only to find that you had reported there that you had reported here that it had been reported at ANI, but that the ANI report was a report back to here. I think that's clear enough. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Filter 47

We've got 3 users caught by that, first seems obvious false positive, and I don't understand why two others are caught and why are they socks of Tile join, which means I'll be inclined to remove them all as soon as the number grows to overflow the page :-) Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed 5 Materialscientist (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about this one

204.174.237.227 (talk · contribs) worked their way up to a final warning and are now throwing a temper tantrum on their talk page. Might this terrible threat be taken to AIV? (The t's were intentional, btw.) ALI nom nom 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another vandal...

It's not too funny that Mcknizzl enjoyed his three month vandalism spree here on Wikipedia. But it is a little bit funny that his run was ended by administrator Scientizzle.

This was just a neat little coincidence that I noticed that is a bit of comic relief. Enjoy your day. Dawnseeker2000 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That, as we gamers call it is a case of pwned.--SKATER Speak. 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All AIVhelperbots seem to be down

I've tried resetting the heading, but the current heading appears fine. Did we forget to pay the bill this month or something? Perhaps they've become organized? Any ideas? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BON#Bots_and_Logging_In_-_breaking_change. Hopefully they'll be updated soon - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit annoying that all of the users who have been blocked are remaining up post-purge. I think this has been happening for the past few weeks, actually. Either that or others are much quicker than I with the blocking. I think both are the case. Come back AIVhelperbots! Valley2city‽ 17:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a message for Krellis, but it looks like he's busy with other things currently. The source code is here if anyone wants to try to fix it. Details on the new login system are here. Reach Out to the Truth 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot 3 is back online, and fixed code sent out to the other bot operators. —Krellis (Talk) 21:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I've updated 7 with Krellis' fixed code too and it seems to be working fine again. Will (aka Wimt) 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Leave em down I say, I find Hj to be a fine substitute.--SKATER Speak. 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Great news, thanks for the fixes! Thanks too to all the editors that put in extra effort to keep AIV clerked while the bots were on strike. ~ mazca talk 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No, don't! I've got much better things to do! And Mazca, I can't speak for the others, but it's no problem on my part, I'm just glad to have the bots back! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
helperbot5 has been updated and is back on the block. — JamesR (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've raised a question about copyright blocks, the appropriate venue for requesting & the number of warnings required at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copyright blocks. Feedback there would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please help me.

I got banned for editing my page Baloo Web one more time. Is it because if you already have a speedy deletion on that page you can't edit it any more? Reply would be very helpful.

--Mydomainwiki100 (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not banned. You've just been warned not to remove the speedy template. If a speedy deletion is put on a page, you may still edit it, but you may not remove speedy deletion templates from pages that you created. If you would like to contest the deletion and work on the article more, you can add the template: {{hangon}} to the page. Elockid (Talk) 13:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That's the general idea, yes. However I've already deleted the page. Unfortunately, an article on a website that not only isn't live yet but doesn't actually exist (the link returns a 404 error) is very unlikely to meet our notability guidelines on web content. It would be better for you to wait until the website is live and, if it gets popular and is covered by reliable sources, then an article might be possible. Black Kite 13:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Active Vandal

If this's not the proper place, I'm sorry and appreciate notice. Just undid vandalism by IP 71.89.135.6 on Checkpoint Charlie, did it twice, and he/she's already busy again. What's the policy here, since I'd assume this IP would never bother to check the user-page, assuming does know of same. IP seems to belong to Tri County School District, MI. So ... just wait until class is over? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. A better place to report such cases is the project page rather than its talk (where were are now). Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
With the request to warn before reporting, I thought I'd rather ask. Just saw you blocked several vandalizing IPs (less I saw wrong). Thnx for doing what I just intend to do. --G-41614 (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

91.110.*.*

This particular user has been putting this egregious vandalism on Input device, Input/output, and Output device for the last four months. There's been some suppression of the edits and I made a list of all the IPs on that particular network. Dawnseeker2000 00:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reports as of 00:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the reports that are currently here as of 00:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC) because:

  1. This page is for reporting vandalism and not violations of policies
  2. A user shouldn't be reported here just for triggering an Edit Filter
    Boygirl22 (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
1. Correct, but it happens anyway
2. That's why those reports are in a separate "bot" section for evaluation by a (presumably) sentient human admin, because the edit filter does catch vandals on occasion. —DoRD (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

New Section for Reports

Because the edit filter catches vandals occasionally, maybe we should have a separate "Filter-reported" section for filter reports. Keyboard mouse (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In effect, we already do. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 06:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, why don't anyone just change the heading to "Filter-reported" instead of "Bot-reported"? Boygirl22 (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also the location for cluebot reports. It could certainly be expanded to have two sections. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

02:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Reports

Vandals are only reported after the final warning, and 24.46.2.171 didn't vandalize after the final warning. Maybe we should remove that report. Keyboard mouse (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Report was made at :33, last edit was at :42. Looks like vandalism after final warning to me. --N419BH (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

last contribution: 02:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC) final warning: 01:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I just didn't see the time carefully, so it was appropiate to report the vandal. Keyboard mouse (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
There is no hard-and-fast rule on what warnings must be meted prior to a block. This IP was on a vandalism streak, given warnings, and given a short block. Nothing controversial about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 03:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about an odd vandal

IP 76.122.99.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making irrelevant comments on talk pages; he's been reverted and told to stop but seems uninterested in interacting. He's been on that IP address for about a week; the rate of postings is low -- 2 to 3 per day, on average. I haven't run into a vandal like this before and was curious what the usual response would be. I hesitate to post an AIV report since it's only on talk pages and the rate is low; on the other hand there are over a dozen instances now and it's hard to believe the IP doesn't realize their comments are not constructive. What would be a reasonable way to deal with this? Block for a few days, or just clean it up as the rate is low? Mike Christie (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment - I note that the IP user has lately been choosing Discussion pages of featured articles, such as: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Many of his "contributions" have consisted of what appear to be non sequitur commentary. Were it me, I'd tend toward a WP:RBI approach. --Alan (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Has the helper bot collapsed?

Quite a few blocked here, but not removed. Hmmm... – B.hotep •talk• 14:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not again...I hope it's just not paying attention or something.--SKATER Speak. 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Poor old Tommy2010 probably thinks nobody is paying attention to his reports... :-) – B.hotep •talk• 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be working, if a bit slow to react... Dreadstar ☥ 17:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Guess bots like all computers can lag.--SKATER Speak. 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot logged out

Resolved
 – Back now.--SKATER Speak. 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's editing while logged out...already reported to ANI. What's the procedure with this?--SKATER Speak. 02:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

MiszaBot II

Supposedly the bot is supposed to archive this page after threads go dormant for 7 days, but it apparently stopped doing this after April. Was this done purposely or is the page archiving incorrectly? ThemFromSpace 11:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at User:MiszaBot/Archive FAQ and wonder if solution 2 is the answer? Since there are now 7 threads including this, perhaps the older 2 will be archived in due course... Best keep an eye on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) (some time back) 12:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I was right... and nobody cared! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Adjustments made to archive min. 1 thread, though still will keep 5 threads active on page (no matter how old). --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Starbrighttonight

Was a sock. The helperbot was being too helpful. I'll place my comments below.

Talk page access

Please revoke it for 98.191.224.19 (talk · contribs). Nothing nice being said there. Dawnseeker2000 03:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Talk page access revoked. Elockid (Talk) 03:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Dawnseeker2000 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range

A duck has wandered back on to wikipedia and has been using a dynamic IP range to harass myself and another couple editors that have kept on top of the aforementioned duck.

I am posting well in advanced of this becoming a tedious and repetitive behaviour, but from two instances I can foresee a pattern. Any action that can be taken to watch or block the IP range 216.145.245.0 - 216.145.245.255? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't overreact, these were only two IPs with a large time delay, i.e. not a mass attack. Both blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not overreacting at all. I'm simply pointing out an unmistakeable sockpuppet and an undeniable pattern that is bound to reoccur in the near future and asking if the range can be watched. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Block Request Deleted Without Explanation

On 28 July 2010, I requested a block on IP 92.10.7.141. This IP user had vandalized the article Alex Day three times recently, and been warned three times not to do it. Then, if I am reading the Edit History correctly, this is what happened to the request: Shortly after I submitted the request, User:Tnxman307 added the comment: "No edits today, only one yesterday." After that, the block request was removed by User:Daniel_Case with the explanation "rm both reports per comments and inactivity". But in fact, this IP user had vandalized the article three times, not just once: first, on July 22; again, July 24; and yet again, on July 27. Each time, the vandalism was the same, to wit: "I love Alex Day." The user was warned not to do this each time, as you can see here: User_talk:92.10.7.141. If the block request was removed based on the comment "No edits today, only one yesterday," then the removal was based on inaccurate information. If the block request was removed for some other reason, then I would like to know what that other reason was. How many times does a user have to vandalize and article and be warned, before they are blocked? Is this sort of "I love X" vandalism taken less seriously, and tolerated longer, than other vandalism? Wmoran9550 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this concern. Hopefully, I can explain my thoughts so you can see what my process was. First of all, vandalism is not tolerated. You did the correct thing by reverting the edits and warning the user. A simple addition of "I love Alex" to an article is best handled by doing just that - since the edits occur so infrequently, there is a high probability that a short block will miss the user behind the IP address. Consider - the IP edits once every two or three days. A typical vandalism block is 31 hours, which would not have prevented any of the edits listed. I hope this helps explain the situation - if you have further questions, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. TNXMan 19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all, you say you had "requested a block". Please go back and read the page name: it's "Administrator intervention against vandalism", not "Requests for Blocks". You, as a user, report what you believe to be vandalism; I, as a reviewing admin, review the report and decide what action, if any, to take

Often that is a block. But not always. The guiding principle is preventing damage to the encyclopedia. If no vandalism is occurring anymore, then there is no need to take such action unless it resumes.

I would also remind you that the page instructions say that the vandalism must be recent and ongoing. I reviewed that report on the morning of July 28 in eastern North America. The last edit had been the day before; the previous two edits had preceded it by similar or longer periods. There have been no edits since; all the vandalism was reverted.

In this context I would also refer you to the user's talk page, where are there are three warnings ... none of them final. So, I would sum this one up as:

Blocks are preventative, not intended to be used as punishment.
User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently.
So, if the vandalism resumes, give a final warning and report it when it's happening. If he keeps starting and stopping at this game, eventually we will block him. But maybe, just maybe, he might get bored of that and actually edit. Let's give him that chance. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock-puppet vandalizes

Dear Admin,

This User:Ketabtoon is well-known here by many wikipedians and writers. Specially when it´s about Iran-Afghanistan-Tajikistan related topics, he push his own POVs or deletes informations. Many writer know him as an uneducated Pashtun, because he do not respect reliable sources but uses whatever he gets to underline his own bias POVs. He is actually a sock-puppet of banned User:Alishah, Khampalak, Afghan4Real and others but he again come and come and push his ethnocentric and to a certain rascist POVs. Dear Admins, don´t get fooled by him. He uses possibly a IP-Program that provide him every hours with new IPs so he can come under different names. Just take an eye on him. He is a vandal account only. The rest of his claims are just pure BS and lies. He also asked me if I had vandalized the article about his Pashtun hero Sayaf. Of course, I didn´t.

The best proof is to see by yourself, dear Steve, how this boy Ketabtoon play with facts and falsify them for his own Pashtun ethnicity. Just take a look on the following click here. Please compare the two different versions with eachother and the number of the ethnical composition. Here is the original more and lesser authentic source the original source that he exchanged with with this and used the numbers of a language´s speakers not underlining that the population of Badghis are tri-lingual and speak, no matter to which ethnicity they belong, where they live either all three languages or forced, when they live among a dominant Pashtun group, to speak in Pashtu and thus are counted by the sources, as in the past of Afghanistan politics happened many times, as Pashtu-speaker and thus make 40% while their ethnical composition make only 28%. That´s how Ketabtoon fool people and vandalize articles. Nearly all his edited articles are falsified, just ask some Users like User:Tajik, Nepashgarsalar, Inuit18, Persian and some Pakistani User. They all will tell you this banned user ketabtoon who is als a sock falsify and vandalize everything

Ps: His newest mode is to use own-made references from his own websites best regards--188.107.8.82 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts like this are best handled through the dispute resolution process. Jojalozzo 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template AIV.

Let me preface this by saying that I have barely been active in the past couple of years, and my tools are rather rusty. Anyway, back when I was active, there was no Template:AIV, so it's taking a bit of getting used to (and it's an eyesore, but that's a different story). I'm noticing that almost all iterations of the template are intended to say something along the lines of "I won't block [because of x / do x instead]." Given they imply the request doesn't belong, I find it somewhat redundant, daresay I useless; I just wanted to check if it's still acceptable to simply remove the request with an explanation in the edit summary or a quick message to the user's talk page if further clarification is necessary. And I guess progressing on my perception of the template as redundant, is it considered bad form to remove the block request from the queue once it's been tagged with Template:AIV (in circumstances where the request would be removed eventually anyway, I mean)? Apologies if this seems a bit "retro," but it's odd to come back and see people clogging up the page when the goal used to be to clear the backlog. | (Example: third vandalism, 1:21, final warning, 1:22, user reported without further vandalism, 1:23, I removed request—far too early but cut me some slack please, I'll get it right next time, 1:25, final vandalism before block, but had it not been for this and my screw-up my point would still stand, 1:28) Cheers, · Andonic Contact 01:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably fine with that. The purpose of the AIV template is because users who placed reports had no idea of how they were disposed of; AIV moves so fast that edit summaries get lost. But if you notify someone when you delete their post without acting on it, then that's probably cool too. --Jayron32 04:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
As long as you notify them, it's fine otherwise they might wonder where their report went, given how quickly it will likely move out of the immediate history. That said, it's sometimes worth leaving a report here for a little while to see if the vandal keep at it. For example, you might tag a report with {{AIV|i}} or {{AIV|f}}, only for the vandal to persist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the feedback. Glad I'm not stepping on any toes by doing it the archaic way. Cheers, · Andonic Contact 08:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

About reporting

Can I report someone if they've vandalized 3 times, and in all, they only have 3 edits? Thanks. Endofskull (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends if the user has vandalised past warnings and (if it's an unregistered user) if the edits are all recent. Hut 8.5 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BRfA related to this page

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DuckBot for more details. —I-20the highway 01:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Name

I've never understood why this page has such a complex name. What's wrong with Wikipedia:Vandalism reports, or something simple along those lines? Aiken (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not opposing a rename, but I'd suggest a more accessible/simple name like "Vandalism reports" would encourage reports on things other than "obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". Skomorokh 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I would lean toward the same feeling, and I don't think there's any actual need for a rename of the page. It seems clear enough to me, at least. —fetch·comms 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You could always use the short cut WP:AIV, that's quite simple and not too long. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I use the AIV shortcut only. It's easy and fast enough. I don't see a need for a rename. -- Alexf(talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Hello everyone. Thanks for blocking this vandal just a few minutes ago. This particular vandal has been active since May of this year. Their goal is to insert garbage into the McDonnell Douglas MD-10/11 articles. They had been successively blocked for increasing lengths up until today's events. Today's block is good, but we might be better protected from unnecessary vandalism if we continue to escalate the length of block time. The person doing this has proven their endurance. Dawnseeker2000 01:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They have not edited in weeks. One of them in over a month. Maybe they took a rest. -- Alexf(talk) 17:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute

This is a heads up for a proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute See: Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#RFC: Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot question

I don't understand this edit by the helperbot. It just removed my report of User:198.150.101.49 (see the bottom of the diff), without giving a reason, and the user has not been blocked. I wonder if it was some kind of edit conflict? Arthena(talk) 16:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP. I can't explain the deletion - possibly some sort of glitch; worth keeping an eye on, or ask the bot operator. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Same deal with this edit [8]. Removed, no comment, nothing happened with IP. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Users

Is there a way of removing or hiding blocked users from my watch list? I've been doing some vandal fighting and the IP address are automatically added to my watch list by Twinkle and Huggle. After a while they start to clog it all up. I don't want to delete from my watch list, so I can keep an eye on them once the block expires. Any suggestions? — Fly by Night (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See if importScriptURI('http://ru.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); suits you. It will basically strike out blocked users, making them easier to spot (but won't remove them completely). - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The link you gave jumped straight to a download that my computer didn't know how to open. What was the link, what did it do, and how can I implement it? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You could select "Edit raw watchlist" and erase the IPs. That's what I do. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said: "I don't want to delete from my watch list, so I can keep an eye on them once the block expires." — Fly by Night (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't open the link. Instead create or go to your User:Fly by Night/monobook.js file and add the lines:
//Mark blocked users
importScriptURI('http://ru.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
somewhere in it. Close the file and it should then start striking out blocked users so you can visually tell them apart. Works for me. -- Alexf(talk) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I did that, but it didn't work. Then I realised that I don't use the monobook skin. So I did th same with vector.js and it works perfectly! Thanks a lot. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Users II

I'm using the above code in my vector.js. It puts a line through the name of any blocked user; which is exactly what I wanted. However, it also puts a line through any link to that user's pages. It even puts a line through the rollback options given by Twinkle. Is there another code that only puts a line through the user's name and not everything associated to that user? — Fly by Night (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Just curious

Yesterday I reported two accounts here. The report was removed here without either account being blocked. The vandalism continued and User:Hertz1888 reported both of the accounts again. Only one was blocked here. What went wrong with the processing of the first report and why wasn't the second account blocked ? Just curious, a mistake or something about the reporting/formating that I'm not aware of. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a possible error with the archive bot, try leaving a note on the bot operator's talk page. Nakon 06:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

NOT INTUITIVE OR USER FRIENDLY

Yes, I'm shouting. This page, the pages to which it's linked, in fact most procedural pages @ Wikipedia are labyrinthian, bureaucratic affairs which drive non-techies, non-bureaucrats, and lovers of simplicity NUTS. I love reading the statements of administrators. Wikipedia's info pages are as unwieldy as any real or fictional satire of bureaucracy. To say that this discourages participation and weakens the site is a slight understatement. (-; Tapered (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean the AIV page? Where do you want vandals to be reported then? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with the AIV format? You have clear instructions and two formats, IPs and named accounts. Post and forget. What's so difficult? If you mean other admin boards, then this is the wrong place to complain about them. -- Alexf(talk) 21:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail Article (again it seems)

I would like to add a controversy section to the Daily Mail article, or to at least add some negativity to the article as it is biased, with nothing bad and watched by "Christian1985" and "collect" I was under the impression that as long as i placed decent sources to back up my work then i would be fine, yet "Christian1985" is unmovable and appears to control the article and content from anything he does not agree with, which appears to be only pro-Daily Mail information. Can i request that you check the Talk Page of the Daily Mail (newspaper) article to give your opinion?

Thanks Jenova20 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to discuss that sort of thing - if you can't come to some agreement with another user, try WP:Conflict resolution. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Benzwillinger at Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy

Benzwillinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) While probably not appropriate for blocking yet, I am heading out and some additional eyes on the article may be helpful. The users contributions seem to be limited to promoting some friends in his high school club. Active Banana (bananaphone 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You need the main page, but this seems to have gone quiet so best to ensure they are properly warned before reporting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:OK-RD at 2000-2009 in fashion

OK-RD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This guy, who has had previous warnings for vandalism, has been constantly vandalising the page which I put considerable effort into re-organising. He seems to consider it his duty to include the most trivial fringe fashions (notably male use of ugg boots), despite such practises being highly unusual in mainstream society, and even among teenagers. The function of the article is for the most general, mainstream trends and such edits are trivial and unconstructive in addition to being full of grammatical errors.

This is the talkpage for AIV, but this does not seem to be a vandalism/spam issue - try the processes suggested at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Helper bot deleted my entry

Just an FYI, but the bot blew away my entry. See this diff, which happened right my edit. Wizard191 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because that IP address was blocked. Helperbot is just doing exactly what Helperbot is supposed to do; when an user is blocked, Helperbot removes the report. See [9]. --Jayron32 21:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

How do I report a blocked IP, which continues vandalism by posting obscene harassment on its user talk page? My attempts to report this here have been removed by HelperBot. RolandR (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sokay - I just sorted it, Roland ;) - Alison ❤ 11:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Alison. But I was also asking as a general question: what is the best way to submit such a report if the need should arise again? RolandR (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You can either a) ignore it (users who are blocked will vandalize their userpage because people are paying attention, so will keep up a "tit-for-tat" sort of game. If you let them get the last word, they go away, and then a day later, you can revert it and they won't even notice) or, if you really must, b) you can ask an admin directly. The blocking admin is a good place to start, he can up the block level if needed. But really, the best thing to do is just stop the back-and-forth. If you let the vandal get the last edit on their page, it cuts down on the vandalism. --Jayron32 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
We did devise {{talkvandal}} a couple of years ago for reporting this sort of vandalism, (see this archived discussion), but it never took off. Is it worth resurrecting the idea? If not, the template might as well be deleted. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Template warnings, IP users, passage of time

If an IP user's talk page has prior template warnings at various levels, but there has been several months of inactivity, is it general practice to start again at Level 1? AGF that this may well be a different individual who requires re-warning? Just wondering if there is guideline for this, couldn't find this issue described explicitly in the back pages. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If they're back vandalizing the same article or topic area, likely the same person (although it could be a class teaching the same book to a new set of pupils) - in that case, continue from the previous level. If it's completely unrelated vandalism, likely a rotating DHCP address pool, so it is a completely new vandal who needs a completely new set of warnings. You can also look at who owns the IP address or range, a school or a library is probably someone new; if the address is owned by a business, more probability it's someone's same kid in on the weekend while Mommy gets caught up on work. I don't think it's really possible to set a guideline, since the cases can vary so much. Franamax (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Franamax. The Interior (Talk) 06:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearwire

Anyone know if Clearwire IPs are shared or not? --Nlu (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken they're dynamic, but typically the DHCP lease is rather long. I wish I still had the notes I took while I was digging around on it; it's been a couple of years. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

deletion of my report!

why every time i report a vandalism, my reports get deleted and not giving the AIV any change to even take a look at my report? [10]

--213.6.17.166 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A bot deletes reports automatically when the associated vandals have been blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
That's actually not what happened there. The reports were manualy removed by Logan (talk · contribs). I'll inform him of this thread.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
And was right in doing so. The IP's obviously pursuing the truth - the three editors that were listed in his report (me included) were those who reverted his blatantly POV and badly sourced (well, there were a lot of sources but after checking a dozen of them and finding only opinion posts and clearly non-neutral publications I and my connection gave up) edits in the article about Palestine Christians. The AIV report was bad faith and against policy on reporting vandals. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

still waiting for an answer!!!--213.6.17.166 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your AIV report failed to provide the result you were looking for, and the reasons for this and the previous deleting of your reports are evident if you bother to read the WP:AIV page. The edits must be considered vandalism (no one else seems to think so in this case) and the users must be warned properly beforehand. Also, AIV is not a dispute resolution measure - mediation, on the other hand, is, and there is a mediation request which should concern you too, although either you or some other editor from the same IP block has refused to participate in the mediation (something which I fail to understand, but it's their choice). Zakhalesh (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop removing my comments [11] [12]. It does not help your POV in any way and will get you blocked again. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Accidental Rollback

Accidentally reverted a report. Sorry. Creation7689 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot

Is Cluebot NG down? I discovered some pretty blatant vandalism when I checked my watchlist that should have been caught by the bot. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

AIV Template

Would it be possible to add a parameter to {{aiv}} that notes when the bot-added edit filter-based listings are false positives? The only "Edit is not vandalism" tag we have admonishes the editor to be more careful before reporting - something which would do nothing when the reporting editor is a bot. One idea might be to mirror what's there, thus:

False Positive. Edits are not vandalism.

We might link to the Edit Filter's false positive page, if there's consensus to do so - but usually I'm seeing edits that make sense in terms of the filter, but just aren't vandalism. We had one edit tagged as a personal attack today, because it replaced the name of a school principal with a name containing "Wong". Turns out, the guy's name actually is "Wong". So it's not a false positive in the sense that the filter needs to change, but it is in that the report isn't actionable from AIV. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I went ahead and added this parameter to the template. {{AIV|fp}} or {{AIV|false}} will now render as per the above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Had missed this comment before. I see it as a useful addition. Good job. -- Alexf(talk) 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

reasonably sophisticated vandal

User:95.246.96.43 added a lot of nonsense "native names" to language info boxes today. Enough thought went into them that many of them may be fairly convincing to the naive reviewer, and since the edits are quite obscure (native names of minor languages), they could go unnoticed for a long time. Since all edits on this IP date from today, I wonder how many other days they've done similar things under a different address. — kwami (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like long-term vandal. I've checked only last two days, which seem reverted. Materialscientist (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reported in 'error'

Re this report:

I was attempting to remove a welcome template placed by HJ Hitchell (talk · contribs) an impersonator of Admin., HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), Obviously the edit filter doesn't like IPs deleting teh entire content of a user talk page. Prolific sockpuppeteers Who me? :-o Hmph! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 19:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Marked"

So, HBC AIV helperbot7 hidden note "marked" a block request of mine that I thought was pretty open and shut. I'm not sure what that means, and I'm particularly concerned if it's holding up review of this case, as the request has been there for quite a while for being alone on a page that previously had 4 reports cleared in front of it. KnownAlias contact 13:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocked 9 months, so not important, I guess. Never mind, and thanks. KnownAlias contact 14:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

When the bot stops working

Just a reminder that most of the time, when the bot stops removing blocked accounts, it's because someone has manually changed the header. All you have to do is go back to the last time the bot removed an account, and check the diff to the current version. If there's been any changes to the header, reset it. Of course sometimes the bot just breaks, but that's fairly unusual. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried that yesterday, but it did not seem to work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Trick?

Is there a trick to adding something to this page? I had to try 3 times before my edit took, the other times I had edit conflicts. I finally got my entry added, but I wonder if there is a way to edit "faster" (I already cut and pasted my text) to give less chance of edit conflicts. Tenbergen (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You could try this tool to help speed things up - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Roksanna

This user play down and minimized the armenian genocide on the german wikipedia. You have to block her, negationism in wikipedia is not allowed. I can show you [13] I translated she said: I offer my mediation [...] play highed destiny of armenians... --77.3.98.199 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism edits in en:WP. Can you point to some? else no reason to block here. -- Alexf(talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Helperbots

Why is there only one bot patrolling this page currently, and why does that bot keep failing for no apparent reason? --Closedmouth (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "stale"

How old does a vandalizing edit by an IP have to be to be considered "stale"? --Kenatipo speak! 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That’s a fairly subjective determination, so I’ll just give you my personal opinion.
For unregistered IP accounts, there are many factors to consider. Is it a dynamic or static IP? Have there been no constructive edits whatsoever from the account for a long period of time? Is there a history of blocks on the account? Has the account vandalized primarily the same article or set of articles (indicating the same person)? Those are all things I look at to determine if the account is likely to vandalize again in the near future.
So when it come to a stale AIV report on an IP account, I guess I know it when I see it. I realize that’s probably not the answer you were looking for, but it’s the best I can do to articulate my view. — Satori Son 15:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Persistent userpage vandalism

My userpage is being destroyed the last days, by User:Dean1977 and anon IP User:12.2.142.12 (i am 99,99999% sure it is the same person). All this because i once again "fed the troll", now in the UD Las Palmas article.

I positively and utterly lose my mind when it comes to vandalism, and have already served a small block for disrputive edit summaries. But that's another story, what can be done about the aforementioned individual(s)?

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've given the account a warning, if they persist then an indef block is certainly in order. If you like I can protect your userpage to prevent new editors from changing it. Hut 8.5 21:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help and your input. Regarding the second issue, yes, i would highly appreciate it.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bots

Are the helper bots for AIV not working currently? SpencerT♦C 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page improperly protected for vandalism

Not sure if this is the right place to post but if not I apologize and maybe I could be redirected. Recently Circumcision has been protected by Doc James (talk · contribs · email) for vandalism. Doc was just recently in an edit war with myself and a few others over the new intro he has written. Is it not entirely improper for him to protect the page being so close to the issue? Garycompugeek (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds more like WP:AN would be as more appropriate venue. --Jayron32 18:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/Archive_13&oldid=1147965444"