Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism
 | This talk page is not for reporting vandalism. If you want to report vandalism, do so on the page itself instead. |
|
The HBC AIV helperbots assist with the management of vandalism reports. Edit the following parameters in the page header to control the bot's behavior:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. |
|
| Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
Please use {{Schoolblock}} and {{Anonblock}} as Block Reasons
These templates transclude very nicely onto the page seen by blocked users, and provide extremely good reasoning and instructions for schoolchildren, teachers, and others. Coincidentally, there is an optional comment parameter ({{Schoolblock|comment goes here}}) in both of the templates. Thanks guys! alphachimp 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I recommend commenting on the length of the block when using these templates, which allows users to know when the blocks have expired. It may notify vandals when they can start disrupting again, but a motivated vandal can easily find that out from the block log anyway. --Ginkgo100talk 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I highly agree -- especially on longer blocks, or even any block on a widely shared IP address, we should be careful what we say in those block messages. These templates are a very good thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- It tells a user how long they are blocked for in the message blocked users get, anyway. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Having never been blocked, I did not actually know this! --Ginkgo100talk 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I actually discovered it when I visited an elementary school that was blocked and tried using a computer to edit. alphachimp 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Having never been blocked, I did not actually know this! --Ginkgo100talk 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It tells a user how long they are blocked for in the message blocked users get, anyway. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I highly agree -- especially on longer blocks, or even any block on a widely shared IP address, we should be careful what we say in those block messages. These templates are a very good thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"+" symbol
At the top of the talk page I see a "+" symbol on a tab. I used to see one on the article itself; it was very useful! Does anyone know whether it is missing for everyone, and if so, where it went to? Notinasnaid 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It only works on talk pages, IIRC. Rarely do we need to add a section (what the + means) to an article in this manner. 〈REDVEЯS〉 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It definitely used to work on the article page connected to this talk page, and it was extremely useful. It allowed reports to be added without any risk of edit conflict; sometimes I otherwise have to try half a dozen times. Notinasnaid 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I removed it, as I though it made no sense at all, I rarely have edit conflicts as I'm using script for reporting. →AzaToth 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not everyone uses script to report vandals. I have had edit conflicts in the past, particularly in periods of multiple vandalism reporting. If there is a way to avoid this, it would help "mere mortals" without script. Bencherlite 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got EC'd twice when I was trying to report an inappropriate username. Of course, I was also on the phone and trying to type with one hand. Hbdragon88 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need to call reports in to the Wikimedia foundation! --Ginkgo100talk 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Should I have clarified that I was waiting on hold for the dumb Office Depot clerk to connect me to their ink department? Hbdragon88 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need to call reports in to the Wikimedia foundation! --Ginkgo100talk 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please could you put it back, or explain how to.Found it, and restored it. __NEWSECTIONLINK__ . Thanks. Notinasnaid 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid edit conflicts, you could assemble the report somewhere else (notepad, etc.) and then copy and paste it in so you are not sitting in the page so long to enter it. The quicker people are in and out, the better really. :) Bubba hotep 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had been reduced to doing that, but surely using a method that completely avoids edit conflicts is better? Notinasnaid 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and of course I am more susceptible to edit conflicts because I generally like to put a proper edit summary in for removing reports if I'm not going to block, so I need to do it "live" really. Bubba hotep 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Edit conflicts seem to occur in my experience very frequently on WP:AIV including just now on here!) DDStretch (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- But the plus sign creates new sections, which I don't think are removed by the bot. I'm going to test that now. And the reports shouldn't be in different sections anyway. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, it does remove sections. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying that out. I was going to earlier on to test whether it interferes with the bot. I didn't want to cause an edit conflict though! ;) Bubba hotep 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. You added here [1], bot removed report [2], but removed the section break as a "comment" [3] after another editor reported a different vandal and was blocked. -- Gogo Dodo 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Bubba hotep 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll point this out to Krellis. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did I hear my name? Why yes, I did! I'll play around with this a bit in my sandbox and see if I can make something smart happen. I'll report back here later. —Krellis (Talk) 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll point this out to Krellis. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Bubba hotep 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had been reduced to doing that, but surely using a method that completely avoids edit conflicts is better? Notinasnaid 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid edit conflicts, you could assemble the report somewhere else (notepad, etc.) and then copy and paste it in so you are not sitting in the page so long to enter it. The quicker people are in and out, the better really. :) Bubba hotep 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- (De-indenting; that's a lot of colons...) Well, one thing you can do is simply not enter a "Subject/headline" when using the "+" to add a report - it'll result in a blank edit summary, but it will also add the report w/o a new header, and it seems to avoid the possibility of edit conflicts. As far as the bot goes... I'm not sure what the best behavior would be. Would we want it to always remove any additional headings underneath the "=== User-reported ===" header? Do that all the time (whenever it sees it), or only when we're removing another report? Or only when we're removing the report immediately below the header? It's a little complicated, unfortunately. One thought I had - put the template in the header, then the report below it. That way the bot will remove the header as the report, and the line(s) below as comments to the report. Not exactly the prettiest thing in the world, of course... Let me know what everyone thinks is best, and I can make it happen - easiest might just be not entering anything as the header when using "+" though. —Krellis (Talk) 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- If we can figure out a good way for the bot to remove surplus sections, I wouldn't mind those at all -- whatever makes it easiest to keep this place moving and fulfilling its purpose. The best idea I've got is if it counts the number of sections on the page, and removes any section headings after the X-th section, which could probably be a variable (numsections, say). Note it would only remove the heading line, not the contents. I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Usernames at AIV
A couple of users insist on bringing every username that contain words like 'lol', 'omg' and anything that might be construed as even slightly amusing to AIV. Can we have a rule that goes something like this: "Unless usernames contain one of the seven dirty words, they are not blockable upon sight"? OK, so maybe I'm joking, but only a little bit. It's kinda tiresome to remove usernames which "might be a clear violation of username policy" (that was seriously what someone wrote a couple of nights ago). I think this is what RFCN is for. – riana_dzasta 07:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It should go without saying, that if you even consider saying a name "might" be any kind of violation, then it should go to RFCN. I try to limit names reported here to attacks, profanity, and impersonators. Leebo T/C 07:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It should, but apparently it doesn't. I fail to see how User:Omeislol is violating the username policy (even if we consider his edits about 'Omes', a group of people who are the opposite of emos). – riana_dzasta 08:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can usually tell the ones that no admins think are clear violations because they sit on AIV for a while until the backlog of real vandals is clear. Because that's when it usually happens, at backlog time! I think we need to let the users who are reporting them know when we come across one we aren't going to block, because I am fairly sure it is just a handful of people who are reporting them on a regular basis. Bubba hotep 08:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about trying to notify the users who list this type of name, in particular - I understand that there are too many reports to always notify someone when a report they make isn't blocked, but I suspect that these people just aren't paying attention to the history and seeing their entries removed, or, even if they are, simply don't understand that they're not appropriate. Some of the edit summaries I've seen recently when these are removed make it clear that some admins are (justifiably) getting quite frustrated with them - better notification when this happens is probably the best way to limit it. I'll keep an eye out for this type of entry being removed, and try to notify some of the reporters myself if they haven't already been notified. —Krellis (Talk) 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ahem, my summaries are probably more frustrated than some peoples' ;) It's difficult to notify people at peak backlog hour, but I'll try harder to do that from now on. – riana_dzasta 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Bubba hotep because most of the editors that report username violation includes me and now I only report those names which include the "seven dirty words" as well as those which include other harsher words such as those mixed with slangs and I have made over 150 reports in the last 2 months and I have always checked the history to see if it was blocked or removed and it is quite frustrating for the Admins in dealing with these "violaters" but in the end I believe its for the good and to riana_dzasta's reply as I remember Iam the only one that uses the word "might" and Iam sorry if it might be giving you headache but if the Admins wont do their job then who would? the Bureaucrats..nahh..--Cometstyles 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh Cometstyles, it's no headache :) That's what we signed up for, innit? But yes, I do believe that only usernames which are egregiously offensive (swear words, attacks on fellow editors, etc) should be reported to AIV. In the interests of assuming good faith, a discussion at RFCN is more appropriate for the less obvious cases. – riana_dzasta 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about trying to notify the users who list this type of name, in particular - I understand that there are too many reports to always notify someone when a report they make isn't blocked, but I suspect that these people just aren't paying attention to the history and seeing their entries removed, or, even if they are, simply don't understand that they're not appropriate. Some of the edit summaries I've seen recently when these are removed make it clear that some admins are (justifiably) getting quite frustrated with them - better notification when this happens is probably the best way to limit it. I'll keep an eye out for this type of entry being removed, and try to notify some of the reporters myself if they haven't already been notified. —Krellis (Talk) 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can usually tell the ones that no admins think are clear violations because they sit on AIV for a while until the backlog of real vandals is clear. Because that's when it usually happens, at backlog time! I think we need to let the users who are reporting them know when we come across one we aren't going to block, because I am fairly sure it is just a handful of people who are reporting them on a regular basis. Bubba hotep 08:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It should, but apparently it doesn't. I fail to see how User:Omeislol is violating the username policy (even if we consider his edits about 'Omes', a group of people who are the opposite of emos). – riana_dzasta 08:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
And again. This sort of thing is rather tiresome and not at all clear-cut. WP:RFCN is the appropriate forum for borderline cases like this. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that the most egregious offenders are using WP:TWINKLE, which it appears sort of automatically points them here. Maybe contact the coder of that and ask them to make it more clear what should go here and what should go on RFC/N? Just a thought. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- In fairness to TWINKLE (which I use, and hope I'm not an "egregious offender" - the vast majority of the ones I report wind up being blocked, so I take that as positive reinforcement :)), the default is to present a strongly-worded JavaScript pop-up when using the "report -> username" option, with quite clear instructions that it should only be used if the username is a blatant violation, and otherwise should be reported manually to RFCN. I'm not sure what more AzaToth could do to prevent bad reports, though I'm sure he'd be open to suggestions. —Krellis (Talk) 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Another Twinkle user here. Maybe best to ask AzaToth to give two username options, one labeled "Report Borderline Username Violation" which goes to the Username comment page, and "Report Outright Username Violation" that goes here? - Denny 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I didn't mean to imply that all TWINKLE users get it wrong (in fact, it's a very low percentage) or that TWINKLE itself gets it wrong, but as both of you have suggested, perhaps make it clearer to those (perhaps newer users) who use it what goes where. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have been told that blatantly offensive usernames get reported here (such as Shitknocker36 (talk · contribs) or Timshithead (talk · contribs)), but usernames that are less obvious should go to RFC/U. Recently, if I see a username that might violate rules, I been careful what to report it to. Acalamari 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly what you are supposed to do. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What annoys me is when someone posts a username that is a clear violation and some admin removes it with an edit summary to the effect of "Username violations don't go here". I haven't seen it happen often, but it is extremely annoying when it does happen, especially when the RFCN page then sits there with person after person putting "Disallow, obvious violation" for the next however many hours for no apparent reason while the user remains unblocked. An example off the top of my head (not one I reported though) is this diff. I would imagine that most admins know that obvious cases are to be reported here, but apparently some don't.--Dycedarg ж 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does the header not mention anything about the fact that people should post offensive username block requests here? It is a de facto process, but the lack of such wording gives a sense that such reports don't belong here. —210physicq (c) 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- One tricky issue is that something could be a clear violation of user name policy, but not fall into the "attacks and profanity" range. I think for ones that are clear, but not threatening, the user should be asked to change the name, but that's just me. If there is no response, then maybe it could go to AIV since it's a clear violation and requests to change it have been ignored. Leebo T/C 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion one should follow the standard process of posting {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} on the user's talkpage in cases like those you describe, but my main point is that there is no reason to post an obvious violation on WP:RFCN instead of here after doing so. RFCN is a page to request comment about possibly questionable usernames (hence the name), not a place to post obvious violations for blocking. It is highly inefficient to do so, because far fewer admins watch the page and many don't seem to block obvious cases until hours of pointless debate has ensued. People moving obvious violations from here to RFCN (which happens rather regularly) is nothing more than a complete waste of everyone's time.--Dycedarg ж 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the end, I think just notifying people would be the best option. (To my knowledge, all the ones I've reported have been blocked, but I try to report only the most egregious cases. And I do use Twinkle.) Maybe develop a bit that could go on WP:U to refer people to, or a short guideline? Granted, people that come in with "EditorNameIsAnInsertProfanityHere" type ones should be blocked on sight, but someone that picks "Britney Spears" or something is probably just unaware it's not allowed and should be dealt with a lot more gently. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion one should follow the standard process of posting {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} on the user's talkpage in cases like those you describe, but my main point is that there is no reason to post an obvious violation on WP:RFCN instead of here after doing so. RFCN is a page to request comment about possibly questionable usernames (hence the name), not a place to post obvious violations for blocking. It is highly inefficient to do so, because far fewer admins watch the page and many don't seem to block obvious cases until hours of pointless debate has ensued. People moving obvious violations from here to RFCN (which happens rather regularly) is nothing more than a complete waste of everyone's time.--Dycedarg ж 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do not forget that HighInBC changed the helperbot to accept the {{userlinks}} template so blatantly offensive usernames could be reported here without them being removed as a comment. He changed it because it was an issue I had brought up some time ago. The userlinks template is to be used here when reporting offensive usernames. However, there are times when some administrators have removed offensive names, and I or another user had to go to RFC/U and report it there, where we were have been reminided that we could have reported it to AIV (which we already did in the first place). Acalamari 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do NOT see any pointer to WP:RFCN at the top of this article with the other pointers to related pages. Why not? JRSpriggs 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is one there now, how does it look? — xaosflux Talk 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest that it mention WP:U specifically. Perhaps instead of the current "obvious vandals", something like "obvious or blatant violations of WP:U"? Or is that too vague? We could combine the two: "obvious vandals or blatant violations of WP:U"? I'm not sure any concise language is going to fully capture what we want to say, but I think either of my latter two suggestions is at least a slight improvement over the current. Thoughts? —Krellis (Talk) 05:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- To Xaosflux: Thanks for putting that pointer into the header. JRSpriggs 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Better now? — xaosflux Talk 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that looks pretty good now. Time will tell if it actually has any impact, of course. —Krellis (Talk) 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Better now? — xaosflux Talk 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- To Xaosflux: Thanks for putting that pointer into the header. JRSpriggs 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest that it mention WP:U specifically. Perhaps instead of the current "obvious vandals", something like "obvious or blatant violations of WP:U"? Or is that too vague? We could combine the two: "obvious vandals or blatant violations of WP:U"? I'm not sure any concise language is going to fully capture what we want to say, but I think either of my latter two suggestions is at least a slight improvement over the current. Thoughts? —Krellis (Talk) 05:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is one there now, how does it look? — xaosflux Talk 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do NOT see any pointer to WP:RFCN at the top of this article with the other pointers to related pages. Why not? JRSpriggs 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Leniency against persistent vandals
I am opening a request for comment concerning what I perceive to be excessive leniency towards persistent vandals who space out their disruptive edits in order to evade blocks by taking advantage of the requirement that "the vandal [must be] active now". This practice has already been objected to by several editors in How to deal with a static school IP with 50% vandal edits (an earlier discussion), and most recently by myself on an editor's talk page. I believe that, in the light of the arguments brought forth in the said above section, the policy should be redefined, or at least made explicit. I would appreciate any community input on the issue. CounterFX 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Going through the archives, I have realised that there is overwhelming precedent for this issue (most recent discussions listed first):
- Do warnings time-out?
- What's the definition of "active now"?
- Removing stale reports
- Removing a report without acting on it
- What does it take to get blocked?
- Time since final warning
- Gripe: People are issuing final warnings and reporting them here at the same time
- Please help me with this!
- Again, too soft
- After a recent "final warning"
- New Idea - see also User:Dar-Ape/Persistent vandalism
- Removal of valid vandals
- Any way to block periodic vandals?
- How many "last warnings" does someone get?
- User: 218.188.3.113
- Question
- “We really, really do mean it this time, just you watch out, I’m warning you” template?
- Have we gone soft?
I have only gone back as far as July 2006; however, my point is that the sheer quantity of these debates (several of which are quite lengthy) is reason enough for the policy to be corrected. The present situation is opening a grave loophole in Wikipedia policy which is readily being exploited by several long-term vandals. CounterFX 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have been a fairly active vandal hunter for months now, and I have not run into problems with admins refusing to block this type of vandalism. From what I have seen, most admins deal with each vandal report on a case-by-case basis, weigh the facts on each case upon what is just and prudent for each case. I have reported MANY vandals that have the editing pattern you describe here. I usually leave a nice note on AIV that says something like "I know that the standard policy is to only block vandals that are currently editing, and while this report is for a stale edit, it is clear that this IP has been used to vandalise several times a day for a while now" and EVERY time I have reported a vandal of this nature, they have been blocked. It seems to me that admins are NOT blindly applying the policy of "Only active in the past 30 minutes" and have clearly taken WP:IAR to heart in dealing with all sorts of abuses. Yes, the slow-moving vandal does take longer to get blocked, but thats because it often takes a week or two to generate enough edits to make it clear that it is a vandalism only IP. One can create a written plan for dealing with this, though it feels kinda WP:CREEPy. My own personal preference is to continue to let admins deal with each vandal on a case-by-case basis and continue the fine work they are doing. And hey, if some admin rejects a block request, remember that a) if the vandal returns, report them again, and chances are they will eventually be blocked b) if they never return, who cares, they didn't need to be blocked anyways. Anyways, that's alot more than 2 cents, but its how I feel on this one. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Regrettably, although I have only been involved with WP:AIV for a relatively short time, it has been already made clear to me that the 1-hour activity-window criterion is, in fact, the standard practice and is, contrary to what you claim, being blindly applied. Kindly refer to this discussion (or to any of the ones listed above) to see my point. I strongly feel that the policy should be changed to make it clear that this criterion, by itself, is not justifiable a reason for dismissing a submitted vandal report. CounterFX 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Admins tend to reject these drawn-out reports because they are too complicated to handle with the snap-block decision process used at WP:AIV. Such persistent and disruptive vandals tend to be better reported and "attended to" at WP:ANI, not here. —210physicq (c) 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- At the top of the WP:ANI page you will find a notice stating "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV". I am not disputing your observation, but if that is the case, then it is all the more reason to correct the wording of both WP:AIV and WP:ANI in order to clarify the separation between the reporting of trivial cases and the reporting of persistent vandals. CounterFX 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- By all means correct and/or clarify them (and discuss on relevant talk pages). The notices should reflect practice. —210physicq (c) 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- At the top of the WP:ANI page you will find a notice stating "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV". I am not disputing your observation, but if that is the case, then it is all the more reason to correct the wording of both WP:AIV and WP:ANI in order to clarify the separation between the reporting of trivial cases and the reporting of persistent vandals. CounterFX 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Admins tend to reject these drawn-out reports because they are too complicated to handle with the snap-block decision process used at WP:AIV. Such persistent and disruptive vandals tend to be better reported and "attended to" at WP:ANI, not here. —210physicq (c) 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Regrettably, although I have only been involved with WP:AIV for a relatively short time, it has been already made clear to me that the 1-hour activity-window criterion is, in fact, the standard practice and is, contrary to what you claim, being blindly applied. Kindly refer to this discussion (or to any of the ones listed above) to see my point. I strongly feel that the policy should be changed to make it clear that this criterion, by itself, is not justifiable a reason for dismissing a submitted vandal report. CounterFX 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
<-return To respond to CounterFX: what I see is a specific dispute with a specific admin over a single judgement call, not some systemic failure to deal with long-term anonymous vandals. It is debatable whether the IP in question meets the threshold for a long-term persistant vandal. 14 edits is pretty miniscule, IMHO. The kind of vandals I am thinking of when I wrote the above have scores of nothing but vandalous edits spread over weeks and weeks. I would disagree that this IP represents a long-term vandal. Bring up someone with 100 vandalous edits with the once or twice a day pattern you describe. As a counter example, look at: this contrib list and this block log and this dif from AIV. I reported a slow moving vandal that showed up 2-3 times a day and spaced their edits over several hours. My report by all acounts was stale (7 hours after last edit and warning) and yet, within 3 minutes of my report, the block was issued. What seems to be at issue here is the difference between a punitive block and a damage control block. Blocking a user who has not edited for hours simply because 3 hours ago they blanked a page does not seem to be stopping anything. 14 edits does not a major problem make. The people at RFPP will be glad to semiprotect your page for you, and when this guy has 2 months of bad edits showing the block avoidance behavior you describe, come back and renominate for block here. You will get a much better result. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- My case did, as you said, start off as "a specific dispute with a specific admin". In good faith, I followed the normal convention of dispute resolution, stating my objection on the admin's talk page and even asking for a third opinion. The editor who gave the third opinion recommended a short-term block, yet the admin upheld his original decision and was subsequently backed by two other editors on grounds that "AIV has worked this way for a long time" and that it is "normal policy". Subsequently, I realised that my situation now concerned a policy issue, and proceeded to open this RfC.
- I really hope I misunderstood what you meant by your last post. Are you expecting me to stay watching this once-a-day vandal, reverting his blatant deletions and issuing ridiculously-named "final" warnings for 2 months before he will get blocked? Come on! 14 edits from a vandalism-only IP is more than sufficient; the fact that some vandals are getting the chance to reach the 100-edit mark is completely pathetic. I really hope you will not take these (admittedly angry) comments personally, but I honestly cannot stand this lax attitude favouring the vandals.
- And, just to drive my point home, take a look here. Hmmm... an unjustified act of deletion. Vandal? Let's check the user's contribs. Nopes, only a single objectionable case, no grounds for blocking. Took place two hours ago; we would have 'missed' it anyway. Oh well. What's that you're saying? That this user's edits are identical to another user's? And yet another user's? All spaced out with a minimum of one-day intervals? Heck, this guy must be really smart. Nah, no use reporting him to WP:AIV; that's already been tried. No point in reverting his vandalism either; rest assured it'd be back in two days' time. Let him be. Leave the cleaning up to the editcount-obsessed or the newbies who have no better contributions to make.
- Of course, all you have to do to revert the deletion is to click here. But I'll leave that up to you.
- CounterFX 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok.. breathe.. in... out... relaxed? Good. Now the point I was hoping to make is that blocks are not meant to be punitive. The admins aren't punishing people for vandalising wikipedia. The block is about damage control: stopping a vandalism problem. No, my recommendation is NOT to stalk this IP address waiting for someone to use it to vandalise again. My recommendation is to go find some article to edit and work on it. If you find a vandal, and you think they need a block to control the damage being created, ask at AIV, but if they aren't blocked, move on. Simply wanting 14 edits over the course of a month to be "enough" to block an IP address for a long time does not mean that the admins will agree with you. Work with the admins to improve wikipedia; don't rail against them for failing to do your bidding. There are ways to deal with this problem, complaining isn't one of them. The whole point is you shouldn't be hunting specific IP addresses waiting for them to vandalise enough to be blocked. Interestingly, in the time we have been having this disussion I have requested blocks for 2 more vandals which were the kind of long-term, time-spaced vandals you claim aren't being blocked, and yes, they were blocked. They had far more than 14 bad edits, however. The kind of vandal you describe is routinely blocked by admins here, the problem is, the example you gave is not that kind of vandal. That doesn't mean you should wait around for that person to become that kind of vandal. It means leave them alone. If they continue to be a problem, renominate them again. If they aren't blocked, don't take it as a personal affront. Find another article that needs improvement, and make it better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and if the problem is sockpuppetry, (users using multiple IPs or usernames to evade blocks) then you can report the problem at suspected sock puppets or better yet, just go to WP:RFPP and ask them to semiprotect the page in question. Then, no IP can vandalise the page. AIV is for dealing solely with simple vandalism by a single IP that is currently vandalizing. That does NOT MEAN that users being disruptive in other ways will not be blocked. WP:ANI is exactly for dealing with the kinds of problems that require some investigation to deal with rather than simply quick blocks. Its not a question of allowing disruptions to go on, its simply reporting it to the right forum to deal with it. You don't call the paramedics if your house is broken into... likewise, you should report complex problems to the correct source. AIV is not designed to handle every kind of disruption. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think Jayron32 has explained this very well. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to be succinct and straight-to-the-point:
- I am fully aware that blocks are meant to be preventive and not punitive; however, it should more importantly be ensured that avoidance of the latter does not hinder execution of the former. In the vast majority of cases, failing to block the persistent vandals is only resulting in further disruptions which could have been prevented.
- I find it unfair that this discussion is being treated as if I were merely "complaining" about a specific decision. In my second post above, I linked to ample discussions where dozens of editors faced the same issue that I have presented.
- Please stop being difficult. "[Do not stay] waiting for someone to use [the IP in question] to vandalise again" - the same person is persistently using the said IP to perform identical acts of vandalism. On the same article, same sections, same content.
- If my specific case indeed belonged to WP:ANI instead of WP:AIV, then the header text of both articles should be reworded, as it is grossly misleading.
- Notwithstanding the above point, I find it highly incompetent of admins to simply dismiss (without taking action) any reports of vandalism which they deem require more investigation than they are ready (or capable) of performing. The least they could do is to refer them to (or just leave them intact for) someone else who can handle them. Wikipedia is slowly turning into a bureaucracy: for a simple report, editors are finding themselves being bounced from WP:AIV to WP:ANI and now on to WP:SSP. As if we are the ones who are requesting a favour from admins by trying to fight vandalism.
- To sum up, I am severely disappointed to find that no-one else appears to be preoccupied about this present state of complacency. I did not open this RfC to bring one or two admins round to my point-of-view, but to close what I perceived to be a serious loophole in Wikipedia policy. I would like to thank the two editors who contributed to this discussion; however, I am considering this RfC closed from my side. Jayron32: If you want to reply to my last set of statements, feel free to do so,
but I will not be posting again unless a point actually worth discussing is raised. Over and out. - CounterFX 14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that we're already pushing the boundaries of vandalism control. The original idea was to allow everyone to edit every page, all the time. One could argue that that's an impractical idea (and I agree with you) but the point is that right now we're doing our best to balance freedom with damage control. I know it can be frustrating - believe me, it's just as frustrating for us to remove reports as it is for you to have them removed - but Wikipedia has made it this far, and it's not about to fall apart now. We'll get through it, one way or another. Kafziel Talk 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to be succinct and straight-to-the-point:
I have sympathy with both "sides" of this. I nearly always find my reports at AIV blocked. Because I'm interested in becoming an admin and want to develop my skills (I know that inappropriate blocks are sometimes a problem, especially with new admins) I follow through with admins on the rare occasions when I think they've been unduly lenient. This has taught me much. For an example, see Kafziel's talk page just today. --Dweller 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
What this means
If we are blocking vandals for edits they made a while ago, that is a punitive block. There is no way to get around the fact that a block for vandalism which is not currently happening is punitive. I'm not passing any judgement on whether or not that's good, but it's important that people who support this realize it, and accept it. -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I want to add a few words to this discussion, based on my two-years experience in blocking vandals. I have about 1,000 articles on my watchlist, articles I have written myself either completely or for the greater part (the many thousands of small changes to other articles are not on my watchlist). Every day I have to spend one to two hours checking all these changes, half of which consist of vandalism. These vandalisms may have been reverted already (but I have to check anyway) or still have to be reverted. In other words vandals cause me to waste minimum a whole hour every day with their antics. How many other serious contributors find themselves in the same position ? In other words, vandals cause a waste of time of thousands of hours (probably much more) every day, when checking the watchlist. And I’m not speaking yet of the vast amount of time that goes in the intervention against vandalism (user warnings, blocking…). In other words, vandalism is a serious problem on Wikipedia. How to deal with this ? Can we remain as lenient as we have been up to now or are stronger measures needed ? This has been debated many times on this talk page, with leniency being favored in the end. I think of myself that I have been rather lenient when blocking vandals. But then I start wondering what is more important : being nice and lenient or the huge waste of precious time caused by this policy. I think the time has come to become more stricter in our policies and not shy away from harsher measures. This should be debated again. JoJan 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Guide to Administrator intervention against vandalism
Because there are a lot of incorrect reports, I thought maybe a guide would help reporters out, so I made Wikipedia:Guide to Administrator intervention against vandalism. It needs work, I've probably missed things, so please help build it. Also I'm not sure if the {{proposed}} belongs there, it's a bit like a guideline, but I'd say it's more like WP:GRFA which doesn't have a guideline tag so it may not apply here either. Any comments or additions are very welcome. James086Talk 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, I can see it going far. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds plausible. My only issue so far is the use of an actual IP (belonging to the Icelandic Ministry of Education) in the Anons / IP addresses section - I would recommend changing this to some bogus address (a private IP perhaps?) in case newbies or vandals try to copy'n'paste it to see what happens. CounterFX 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Use 127.0.0.1 ViridaeTalk 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds plausible. My only issue so far is the use of an actual IP (belonging to the Icelandic Ministry of Education) in the Anons / IP addresses section - I would recommend changing this to some bogus address (a private IP perhaps?) in case newbies or vandals try to copy'n'paste it to see what happens. CounterFX 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks great. I'd certainly support it making it a guideline or official help page. Kafziel Talk 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Took a glance, made a few changes. Very nice idea, good work putting it together. We should probably find a nice, prominent place to link it. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a fan. As for where to link it from, I would say the top of the AIV page would be a good place, but it appears the "Editors #1-3" section isn't always read thoroughly in that ___location anyway. It certainly belongs there, and maybe in the {{uw-AIV}} template also. Good work. :) Bubba hotep 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neat idea, James! :) – riana_dzasta 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a fan. As for where to link it from, I would say the top of the AIV page would be a good place, but it appears the "Editors #1-3" section isn't always read thoroughly in that ___location anyway. It certainly belongs there, and maybe in the {{uw-AIV}} template also. Good work. :) Bubba hotep 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Archives
I am not an administrator but I was bold and requested the archival of this page by MiszaBot. Werdnabot is not currently working. I changed the AutoArchivingNotice template. The current archive is Archive 4 but its size is 422 KB! I divided it. The other part is in Archive 5. The bot will start archiving in Archive 6. I removed the archive indexer code because it will be written by MiszaBot now. I also added the auto=long parameter in the archive box so that links to archives are generated automatically instead of manually. I didn't change the HBC AIV helperbots code. If any administrator thinks that this is a harmful change, feel free to revert what I did. Thank you. --Meno25 09:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless it has changed since this thread, the MiszaBots don't do archive indexing. Even if they did do it in the same way as Werdnabot, it would not be compatible with the type of archive index already in place and created by HBC Archive Indexerbot, so I have re-placed the HBC Archive Indexerbot opt-in. Thanks for taking the initiative and making the MiszaBot request, though, I'd been meaning to do so but hadn't gotten around to it. —Krellis (Talk) 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Lighten Up
It seems apparent that in the great search for knowledge, that Wikipedian editors have become drunk on their own power. What is and is not contsructive can hardly be rationalized by a single editor, this goes completely against Wikipedia's standards of pluralistic community based knowledge. While some changes made on pages are obvious blatant acts of vandalisms, it is important to notice the ethical and moral grey area in declaring what is an act of vandalism.Bswartz 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that this can be interpreted any other way than as childish vandalism. Veinor (talk to me) 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, your other edits to talk pages such as here dont help in your, "its not vandalism" argument. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also for the record, the user has been blocked for vandalism (by me). Veinor (talk to me) 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, your other edits to talk pages such as here dont help in your, "its not vandalism" argument. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neat record, I read it twice. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- What, you read the itsy bitsy writing in the middle, around the hole? --Dweller 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Both sides. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)