Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Working TOO well

I'm concerned this page might be working TOO well. The latest report on it was blocked by 3 administrators, with only 1 minute of separation (00:49, 26 Jun 2005, 00:50, 26 Jun 2005, 00:51, 26 Jun 2005). If this trend continues, we'll have things like 10 or more different admins blocking the same user at the same time. --cesarb 00:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the solution should be to publicise it more so we get more reports. I should think many of us find Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress huge and unwieldy, with alerts that are out of date and not worth doing anything about by the time we find them. A system like this where many admins have the page on their watchlists and people report vandalism that really is in progress leads to good results. I've bolded the link on VIP and tried to encourage people to come here a bit more. Judging by the number of admins who act when this page is edited I think we could easily deal with many more reports here. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a link to this page in all the relevant places I could think of, including such high profile pages as Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism, Wikipedia:Recentchanges, Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). This should make this page more popular... Thue | talk 07:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good thing. Before I became an admin I found WP:VIP to be too unwieldly to effectively use for people that obviously need to be blocked. I recall having to wait for the huge page to load, find the right section, fill in the form, hit "Save page" - oops, edit conflict, figure out where to add the report again, save the page, re-edit the page again to fix a formatting error I made, etc., and then the vandal often wouldn't get blocked on a timely basis anyway. I think that, if multiple admins are blocking at the same time, that's much better than hardcore vandals not getting blocked. As long as people don't start reporting non-vandalism here, I think things are coming along well. JYolkowski // talk 17:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ha! 66.52.54.4 just got 4 blocks in one minute. At least we all agreed that it deserved 24 hours. - BanyanTree 19:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was funny. Why doesn't the software tell you that the IP has already been blocked? Or is that not a feature? Thunderbrand 19:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have a "blocklog" tab using a custon monobook.js that allows me to check if the user has been blocked already... quite handy =) Sasquatch讲看 04:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Test4?

The header on this page suggests that editors use the {{test4}} warning before reporting vandals here. I'm not sure that this is advisable, as a non-admin cannot follow up on this warning. Before I was an admin I would always stop and seek admin assistance after test3. JeremyA 1 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

I agree that non-admins should stop at test3. It's no good people making threats to vandals that can't be followed through. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)

I disagree. I think AIV is the reason that such threats can be followed through. I see that as the basic point. smoddy 1 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with using test4 unless it is definitely going to be followed through. Because someone who isn't an admin might have a different interpretation of what's a blockable offence than the admin consensus, I'd rather they didn't use test4 at all, even if by reporting it here they really were able to get someone blocked straight away. To me, test4 means "I am sitting here with my finger on the block button giving you one last chance and waiting to see if you vandalise again, at which point I will immediately block you." This can only really come from an admin, with the ability to block without having to wait for someone else to see the request, review the evidence, and agree that a test4-style warning was appropriate. Also, {{test3}} is quite strongly worded and sufficient for most purposes, I would have thought. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

I dunno about reg. users using test4. Personally, I am okay with it, but it's up to you guys (I'm an admin so I use test4 anyways) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 1 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Before I became an admin I didn't use test4 much (and if I did, it was usually after reporting on WP:VIP, but I'm okay with non-admins using test4 in situations where they know that an admin would block the user. Knowing whether an admin would block might require a fair bit of experience fighting vandalism on the part of the non-admin posting the test4 though, so I'd rather that casual users who don't have much vandalism-fighting experience not use test4. JYolkowski // talk 3 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

Adminship is about having extra tools. If non-admins can't be trusted with test4, they can't be trusted with test 1-3 either. Can't you place a test4 either if you're going away from the computer and nobody might notice the next vandalism and administer the block? Let's not limit vandal fighters further. --W(t) 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that non-admins shouldn't use test4—I think that that is up to the individual user. I simply feel that this page shouldn't make giving a test4 warning one of the pre-requisites for reporting a vandal here. My reason for this it that when I was a non-admin (not very long ago) I would have personally felt very uncomfortable about using the test4 message. JeremyA 4 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)

test4 is troublesome for use by non-admins because the time between a report to AIV and actual blocking by an administrator can easily be hours, depending on administrator availability. During that time the vandal in question can make quite a number of edits, making the "next time you block" part of the template a very empty threat. As people should not make empty threats, test4 is less useful for non-admins than, say, test3, which simply warns of blocking at some indeterminate time in the future. Collabi 11:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I will not block someone who has not yet received the test4 template, not to mention all the others. I would suggest that all users apply this template before bringing the case here. --causa sui ^talk 03:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't mind if people post here after they've given out 3 warnings, culminating with ((test3)). An admin can then monitor the situation and issue a ((test4)), if needed, and then block the vandal quickly if he continues. It's a matter of judgement really: if a vandal has clearly ignored all warnings up to ((test3)), and it's likely that they will continue immediately and will have to be warned a fourth time, why not bring this to the attention of admins right after the ((test3))? However, if the vandalism happens only sporadically, over the course of several hours, days, or longer, then please warn with ((test4)) first and perhaps even wait until further vandalism does indeed occur before posting here. As I see it, AIV is basically about fast responses, and thus has two uses: when someone can be blocked immediately (five instances of vandalism, four warnings), or when instances of vandalism and warnings are happening in quick succession (what some people call "in real time"). --MarkSweep✍ 04:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete?

Shouldn't this page be considered obsolete? After all, there already is a Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page. ‡ Jarlaxle July 1, 2005 22:39 (UTC)

If anything should be called obsolete, it would be Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, since it's way older than this one. But both fill different niches; this one is for very fast response but reports are mercilessly removed after being acted on (or not), while that one has slower response but the reports stay for some time, warning other editors to monitor the troublesome users listed there. --cesarb 1 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

One comment: Admins would just have to keep a careful watch on this page, otherwise it would develop into a backlog that the former VIP page was. Now the VIP page has been cleared up and has a new format; not sure how effective that would be. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 1 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

This page didn't just appear yesterday. It's been working well for a little while now. See the history of the page, and the discussion above, which talks about how sometimes three admins place blocks at the same time. Admins are keeping a careful watch on this page, and no backlog has built up because once a decision is made reports are removed. — Trilobite (Talk) 2 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

I agree that it's working extremely well! I've used it several times and have seen the effectiveness of it. However, what I'm saying is that the VIP page was intended to be like this, right? (correct me if I'm wrong, :)) Therefore, admins need to keep up their excellent work and make sure no backlogs develop, otherwise AIV would turn into a backlogged VIP page. (Here's a wish that I know will never come true: having both AIV and VIP become obsolete because of the lack of vandalism...) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 2 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

I was discussing on IRC with Linuxbeak, who overhauled VIP recently, how the vandal reporting system might be reformed. A well-thought out arrangement could lead to massive benefits in tackling vandalism. My idea was to have a three-pillared system, where AIV was for vandalism that was happening right as it was reported, and was dealt with immediately (either by blocking or rejection as an inappropriate report) and removed from the page straight away so there would never be a backlog, VIP for vandalism that had been happening on and off for a few days or maybe weeks, and a long-term alerts page for people like Willy on Wheels. VIP does appear to be working a little better now, but perhaps we need a clearer delineation between AIV and VIP, so that they don't duplicate each other's function. — Trilobite (Talk) 3 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

I agree with that—we need a distinction between the two. AIV, IMO, should be for immediate blocking requests (i.e. vandalism happening right now), and VIP should be for "long-term" or returning vandals. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 3 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Test box

I noticed over at Village Pump (proposals) that there is a great tool (displayed above) that lets you give a {{test1}} warning by entering the username to warn in the box. However, didn't see any discussion there of where to put such a tool. I know that when I do RC patrol, I keep AIAV open in Firefox (I have to have some tab open, why not AIAV), and I thought it might be useful to include this tool here for ease of use. Perhaps it could be changed to give a {{test4}} warning instead (i.e., you list the user here and give a test4 at the same time) or if it wouldn't clutter things up too much, all five test warnings could be included here (as I understand it, a different box would be needed for each.) What do others think? -- Essjay · Talk 15:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd try doing a different button for each message, but it wouldn't be useful for me because I use my own. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If you use messages preset in your user subspace, you could add a similar box to your user/talk page and input your subpage instead of the test message.

I was thinking of it here because my system is usually to copy the username (or more often, IP) of the offender from the history of the vandalized page, click over to this tab, paste it into the {{user|Username}} template, paste it into the edit summary box, and click save. With it already present on the clipboard, it would be two more clicks to automatically test4 them from here. I don't know if others use a similar system, but I thought it might be helpful.

Another thought that comes to mind is using something similar on the block pages for admins to auto test5 any user they block. -- Essjay · Talk 16:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, but I again have my own User:Ilyanep/Ban] (I will try to make a page of those sorts of boxes, though... I think you should try to implement those ideas even if only for a trial basis. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

My dear Essjay, you may wish to see User:Smoddy/Warning. Does this fill your needs? Cheers, smoddy 16:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (with edit conflict): Looks like I beat you to it, Ilyanep!

Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking, except in a place that's more visable, like AIAV (because you don't really want everyone running off to your subspace to warn people, do you?). I figured AIAV was a good place, since it's fairly well known and well used, and would be convenient for everyone. Really, I think just test4 would work, becasue that is the most relevant to AIAV (and maybe test5 for the blocking admin, and like I said, maybe that should be on the blockpage). -- Essjay · Talk 16:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking as well. See User:Ilyanep/Tools, I made that before reading your comments ;). I think I'll use that. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope those boxes aren't a drain on the servers! I did something similar in one of my sandboxes, and created one for welcoming new users (one of my hobbies). I still think a test4 box would be useful on AIAV; does anyone have a specific objection to trying it there for a couple of days? -- Essjay · Talk 17:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

No objections to there, no. I have created User:Smoddy/Tools with all the templates I ever use. Sub-page of VIP? smoddy 17:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The box looks good, but it could use a pull-down menu with the warnings, and perhaps short descriptions of them, on the left. The User talk: could probably be assumed. And it could also use the routine to check usernames while typing/pasting. My concern is that by making warnings too easy, we might find a lot of newbie pages being filled with them. ProhibitOnions 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There are user scripts containing warning messages that can be integrated into Monobook.js that work well.--Dakota ~ ° 10:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

gavin newsom

I would like to complain about the page for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco. The article is full of false accusations and insulting language. The mayor is NOT gay and he certainly has earned his current position. Please review the article and make the appropriate changes.

Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism is not the place to complain about the contents of an article. You should do that at Talk:Gavin Newsom or edit the page as you have done. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Public machines and shared IPs

The AIAV works great, except when it comes to school IPs and other public machines. Admins are reluctant to block such IPs, and they often become a haven for vandals. In some cases (such as the New South Wales High Schools: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), over one hundred warnings and numerous short-term blocks have been issued by admins, yet anonymous users of these machines continue vandalizing pages with impunity.

I understand the reluctance to ban anonymous contributions from an IP possibly shared by legitimate users. However, when a machine is the source of constant vandalism, is it too much to ask legitimate users to spend the 30 seconds needed to register? I'm sure almost all serious Wiki contributors are registered users anyway; I don't think I'm going overboard by expecting all contributors using public PCs to log in. OwenX 20:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Because once registered they may still not be able to edit Wikipedia if still using the same IP. I have blocked these IPs in the past, and believe there should be a template that we can use along the lines of "This IP has been blocked due to vandalism. If you wish to help Wikipedia overcome this problem please report this vandalism to your ISP" or something. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we don't report vandalism to ISPs, or in the case of schools, to school administrators. -- Essjay · Talk 06:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm tracking vandalism from User:198.110.227.3 which is an entire school district's proxy. I just warned with test3.. yet.. if it is blocked, noone will be able to edit from there. Srl 16:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So if the IP is blocked....then the students won't be able to edit from that machine for a little while. They can still use Wikipedia as a a resource though, isn't that the really important thing when it coms to these schools? So (I'm still kind of new so explain this to me) what would be the horrible damage that would occur is a bunch of kids can't edit for a while from certain machines?Gator(talk) 16:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, it doesn't restrict access to the content, just to participation. By the way, what's the procedure for getting {{sharedip|blah}} put on a page? when is it appropriate? Also (i'm a bit new at this too) if someone could check the user contributions and my warnings for the above user to see fi I'm doing it right, that'd be appreciated! Srl 17:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a good example of the problem with not blocking IPs that belong to schools, JUST because it's a college IP. See 62.171.194.10. NOTHING but vandalism for some time, yet admins refuse to block (even for a short time) for the off chance that 1 out of 100 edits may be so useful as to overcome the fact that the remaining 99 edits are destroying the project. I say, block it (not forever, just for a short time) and don' let these vandal scum hide behind the fact that they use a shared computer. Other students would still be able to use Wikipedia, just not edit! What is the big deal?! Cost benefit analysis says that it's better to temporarily stop a vandal under this circumstance than let him have free license to vandalise in the false hope that someone might have the holy grail of edits and make ot all worth while. Please! I have no sympathy for vandals. None.Gator (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Colour change

Yup, I changed the colour of the box. I'm not sure if it's because I have poor colour vision, but I for one had trouble reading black-on-blue and blue-on-blue. This is the same colour scheme used in a few other places on WP, too. Dan100 (Talk) 13:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, that's bright. Where is this color scheme used elsewhere? I've changed it to something a little less harsh—what do you think of green? --Spangineer (háblame) 14:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

That shade of green is really nice. I've also darkened the border of the box to make it seem more solid. Sango123 14:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Fine - I can read it :). The yellow is only used in small bits - namely the easy-follow instructions on VfD, ViP etc Dan100 (Talk) 10:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Added new template

I've added a new template {{test2b}} to make it easier to point out what articles have been vandalised. If the admins feel it is appropriate please add it to the main page. :-) --Gaurav Arora ^Talk 16:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism on two pages

User:65.23.232.135 has vandalsed two different pages; The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film),and Star Wars Battlefront II. On their user page I added a template:test2. I fixed the ' Fellowships' page and am about to fix ' Star Wars ' page as well. Is there any thing else I should do? HopefullGomer 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

First, see if test2 has any effect - many rookies get with the program as soon as they're reminded that actual people watch over these pages. If test2 doesn't make the anon shape up, then escalate your warnings; after template:test4, list them on this project page (not the Talk: page), and then one or more admins will be watching their every move. - jredmond 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of a sort

On the page for Carstairs, Alberta, 209.89.199.44 wrote "Carstairs sucks." I removed it, but it was certainly not appropriate. Has this person added similar comments on other pages? Cadillac 00:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

More on Public machines and shared IPs

The following was just posted on User_talk:192.139.27.18, a Calgary Board of Education IP:

I go to Queen Elizabeth

The individuals involved in the vandalism are mainly Gifted and Talented Education students, and many of them consider it fun or fail to realize that the Wikipedia doesn't exist just for their own enjoyment. Temporary IP bans don't seem to solve anything, as the guy on the computer next to me just vandalized the article on Hong Kong despite the fact that his vandalism has resulted in temporary bans in the past, similar for others. When asked about it, he said that "If they don't want us to do it, then they shouldn't let us edit it"

Once again, the system of short-term blocks on shared IPs simply isn't working. If the Wiki engine allowed registered users to post from blocked IPs, these shared IPs could be blocked permanently, for the benefit of all--legitimate school contributors and the rest of us. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I would support blocking the entire IP range. --causa sui ^talk 20:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So vandals would just be forced to register accounts and be able to blend into the crowd even better. What we need is a differentiated recent changes system whereby edits from blocked IPs come on a different list (and in an ideal world, the worst few categories of edits (from blocked IPs, page moves by new users) would need their edit to be approved by a trusted user. So, who wants to program PHP? --fvw* 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Returning vandals

If a vandal who has previously been warned and blocked returns after their block expires to commit the same vandalism, is it necessary to warn them again, or should we just report it immediately? Aquillion 16:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, I'd say yes, but it depends on how long after the vandal's previous block expired, and the behaviour in this time. If the vandal's block expired a month ago, and has made useful contributions before making a questionable edit, then I'd say a warning might be a appropriate. If the vandal immediately vandalises an article after the block expires (or even does nothing for, say, a month, then the first edit is vandalism), I would think that it's appropriate to just report it immediately. --Deathphoenix 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

In general I'd say reblocking immediately is fine, though if at all possible you should make sure it's the same vandal and not just someone using the same IP. I generally only immediately reblock returning vandals if the content or style of their vandalism is recognisably the same. Be on the lookout for school IPs which might look like persistent vandals but have many more newbie-test-style edits and sometimes even some good edits mixed in. --fvw* 17:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there any sort of interface between Wikipedia and related projects to deal with vandals moving from one project to another? User:70.29.3.3 , having been blocked from Wikipedia on October 21, 2005, has proceeded to vandalize 70 pages on Wikiquote in the space of a single day (October 23). Although an IP is involved, the vandalism is exactly the same on the Wikiquote pages as the ones on Wikipedia. Since this person is new to Wikiquote, does that mean that he/she gets to start afresh, going through all the warning stages before being blocked on Wikiquote; or does it mean that blocking can be applied on Wikiquote based on this person's record on Wikipedia? To vandalize 70 pages in one day is so extreme that this person could do a lot of disruption unless the customary grace period would be skipped on Wikiquote. I have informed the Wikiquote administrators of the vandalism but thought that I should mention it here also. I'm aware that this is not the page for reporting someone's vandalism, but I write here because I'm asking a policy question and wished to provide an example. Also, since this user is temporarily blocked on Wikipedia, it wouldn't be a Wikipedia "vandalism in progress" case. InvisibleSun 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There aren't any mechanism for administrators on one wiki-project to block IP's on others. I'm an administrator here on the english wikipedia, but I don't have any powers on any other wiki. And the other way around. The many hundred different wikipedias are completely separate web sites in this (and many other) respects. There are also different blocking-policies among the wikis with some being more tollerable to newbie-testing etc than others, so allowing admins on one project to block users on a different wikipedia is probably not a good idea. It might seem like it on clear cut vandalism like you refer to, but there will always be borderline cases. Whether admins on other projects check IP-history on the english wikipedia before blocking, I don't know. I doubt it. At least I never bother to check any history on other wikis. Shanes 08:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of {{test5}}

Admins, it would really help us non-admins greatly if you remember to add {{test5}} to the vandals' talk pages when blocking them. --Nlu 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's preferable. But the best way to check for recent blocks is definitely the block log. There are cases where posting a test5-message is not on top of an admins to-do list (e.g. reverting the vandalism is more important) and sometimes one just forgets. And the user:talk pages are really primarily meant for messages to the user in question. And, in that regard, a test5 is slightly redundant as he'll get the message anyway when he tries to edit after being blocked. Shanes 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's also a timing thing. I always add it (unless I forget  ;) but it could be that I block then add it, or add it and then block. Could be a few minutes between those. Especially here where a number of admins act, I've been adding that while someone else is blocking. Wikibofh 06:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Green stuff

I just want it stated for the record that the green background thingy for this page is really cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.21.215 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism with New IP

A anon vandal I've been following for the past few days was blocked yesterday, but now a new IP is vandalising the same page (animal, among others). Is it alright to post an alert right away in cases like this, or better to assume good faith and go through the warning templates on the new talk page?

IPs in question:

1. 65.40.238.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 128.54.149.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Jwanders 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Make sure to warn. We'd probably view it as a separate incident. Wikibofh 16:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The new look

I don't see what can be achieved by putting the vandal notices on top of the page in a colourful box, except perhaps lots of confusion for newbies who can find this page. I think this should be put back the way it was. - ulayiti (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I kind of agree... Perhaps leave the alerts at the top, but I don't see the big need for the colourful box. FireFox (talk · contribs)

Shouldn't the alerts really be at the bottom though? That way it forces anyone new to take a look at the instructions first before they edit the alerts section. (Either way, though, we should get rid of the box). Robert ^{T | @ | C} 17:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The new design for the header (instructions) is ok though, it incorporates the new template that appeared out of the blue recently. FireFox (talk · contribs)

Drini despises the new look. The green box is now way too huge. I've tried in the past to make it slimer, but it keeps getting expanded. And now you have to scroll to check if there are any alerts, whereas with the slimer box it would show up instantly. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the worst part, I can live with most of it but having to scroll down to see a single entry on the list is kind of goofy. $0.02 Rx StrangeLove 04:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just have a short introduction, and then a link to a subpage describing what to do if unsure? Saying short, I mean short enough so scrolling to see the alerts is unneeded, but long enough to give a brief description of what the page is for. FireFox ™ 17:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's just a matter of administrators having to scroll to get to the actual vandal listings, we can add a CSS class to the header box (i.e. <includeonly>class="aivheader"</includeonly> in the first line of Template:Administrator intervention against vandalism header), and people who don't want to see it can make it not display in their user css (i.e. .aivheader { display:none; } in monobook.css, depending on skin). —Cryptic (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

neat :) -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hey just out of curiosity why is this page protected from moves? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Doc glasgow protected it a while ago. I noticed it today and initially was alarmed, thinking it was a total protection, so I unprotected it and then saw that it was just a move protection, presumably because a move vandal (Willy, perhaps?) had attacked the page. I decided, in light of that, to reprotect it. Doc glasglow never put a {{moveprotect}} on the page, so I did that to alert anyone who might see the protection. --Nlu (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How long ago was it protected? Shouldn't pages be unprotected after a certain amount of time? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Since October 11. However, I think the length of protection thing might not apply if the protection is against moves only. Folks, what do you think? --Nlu (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think an anti-move protection on all pages dealing with vandalism is a very good idea.-gadfium 08:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the anti-move protection on the pages for reporting vandalism. Its unlikely that there would be a consensus for renaming it that wouldn't involve an admin wandering by, and an admin could remove the protection if needed and move the page then. --Syrthiss 12:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing against the move protection, but the standard move protection template isn't appropriate in this context. Is there an equivalent of {{vprotect}} for moves? Rd232 ^talk 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have a template on the page, since there is no reason at all to move it. The template is clearly intended for cases of move-wars rather than stability of important community pages. To that effect I have removed it. I don't think it needs to be tagged at all, since it's functioning just fine and tags are intended to indicate reduced functionality. Anyone seeking to move this should ask on WP:AN or WP:RM. -Splash^talk 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

agree with Splash: if it ain't broke don't fix it.--Alhutch 23:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

light punishment shock horror

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but I'm amazed at how short the bans are for vandalism. Surely a first ban should be short, but a subsequent one should be a month or more. I've tried doing a bit of editing and started a few articles, but why should editors have to waste time on removing the puerile drivel of sad idiots with nothing better to do than wrecking? Gwaka Lumpa 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am, generally, in agreement with you. If a 24 hour block doesn't work, why would another one do it, and thena nother then 31 hours (like 7 more hours will do it) It should be 24, 48, week then month in my opinion and that's with ana non user a registered user deserves less sympathy ion my book and should be indefiantely banned if the account is obviosuly only for vandalism. Just my thoughts, many otehrs are much more lenient than I.Gator (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I add my agreement to this. It is frustrating to see and revert vandalism from the same user over and over. However, I think anonymous users should be swiftly dealth with and given at least a 48 hour block on first offense to discourage them from coming back for more of the same behavior; might be less likely that they will "learn the ropes". ERcheck 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is collateral damage. Blocking an anon IP often also blocks other legitimate editors. Static IP can (and often are) blocked for a month or more, but most IPs are dynamic, which means that you'll be punishing innocent editors far more often than actually blocking vandals. Also, our primary goal is to get those vandals to become constructive editors whenever possible, not to kick them all out. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And what of anonymous IPs like 207.217.218.1, where the same user has been repeating the same vandalism from (exclusively) the same address for two months, all the evidence points to it being a static IP, and no legitimate contributions have ever been made from that address? I eventually got this user blocked once (for a period of 1 hour, which wasn't much use in itself, but was probably necessary before longer blocks were given). The next time I put it in, it was removed. I understand the reasons against and risks inherent in blocking IPs for more than a short period, but I thought this was a strong case for an extended (*not* indefinite) block. Evidently not. Enough; constantly rvv-ing and giving out warnings when it's clear that nothing of note will ever get done is simply playing into his/her hands and wasting time that could be better spent making positive contributions. Fourohfour 20:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If it is reasonably clear it is a static address, longer blocks are appropriate. If I can be sure it's static so there won't be collateral damage, I'll go something like 24hr, 48hr, week, month for the blocks. But I'll escalate faster if it's really obvious like vandalizing immediately after the block expires or something else that shows similar intent. - Taxman ^Talk 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See I totally agree. Just look at the history of the IP, just don;t assume its not static adn give a weak block (if any). If it's nothing but vandalism for some time then logic suggests that it will continue to be nothing but vandalism for some time to come unless a long block is administered. In those cases, an admin would be right to judge that there will likely be little collateral damage and will, likely, only stop a repeat vandal from coming back for a month or so. Go ahead and take the chance! In other words, don't give an IP leeway JUST because their an IP (thus, rewarding vandals for not registering), take a look at the user history before deciding whether to cut the user some slack. We need to ask ourselves, in general, what is more damaging to Wikiepdia, accidentally blocking a good user (who refuses to register) for a short time or allowing vandals continued freedom tom destroy our hard work. I know what I would say.Gator (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, some dynamic IP's will exhibit repeated vandalism too. So you have to look at the patterns. But you know I favor longer blocks when possible. - Taxman ^Talk 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just adding my agreement here. There is no reason why we should put up with vandalism. If we are fairly certain that there is no collateral damage, long blocks are the way to go. Thue | talk 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Can an user register from a blocked IP address? (If so, then concerns about "collateral damage" are mitigated by the ability of legitimate editors to register and contribute.) ERcheck 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• No, I don't think they can. At least, if they could then they could not edit with the created account. Right now everything or nothing is blocked. It would be nice to able to seperately block

• Anonymous edits
• Account creating
• Edits from accounts

per IP. Bug 550 requests that, but the developers are unfortunently not very responsive to requests, no matter how many people vote for it. A pity, because as a PHP/database programmer (part-time job) this seems to me like quite a simple change (Yes, I have looked at the relevant code), and I would do it myself if the developers were responsive to patches (I have severel patches sitting in bugzilla already). Thue | talk 21:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the answer. It helps me better understand the caution taken toward blocking IP addresses. I do agree that it would be of great benefit to Wikipedia to be able to selectively block anonymous edits and registered accounts. This would not seem to be too different than the newly instituted -- no new articles from anonymous editors. ERcheck 22:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you wrote the patch and posted it on the Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal, I'm sure you'd get enough people lobbying for it and reviewing the patch that it would get implemented. - Taxman ^Talk 13:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't know if this is vandalism or stupidity

Somebody's just changed Byron Nelson's page to say that he died on January 1, 2006 - in other words, tomorrow, since Nelson lives in the United States. I'll edit it back, but is there anything else I should do? --Charlene.vickers 03:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Its vandalism. Just post a warning on the user's talk page. Olorin28 03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Asian user names created and deleted

What's going on with these asian user names? They're being created almost faster than they can be deleted. Is anybody getting a fix on the IP that's doing this? JHMM13 (T | C) 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's most likely a bot. Don't worry, Curps's bot usually takes care of those. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I assume that the bots are using the same IP to create these multitudes of username. There should be a way to restrict the amount of usernames created in a given time period. (eg: One username per hour per IP address) I assume the framework is already setup since Admins (which I hope to be one day) can block an IP for a set amount of time. If I knew more about Wikipedia's design structure I just might be able to write a the PHP code to handle this feat. Pattersonc 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Restored 204.174.27.234

I just restored User:204.174.27.234 again. User:Nlu removed him or her, saying it wasn't spam, but I disagree. I just happened to come across his or her linkspam; however, if you check the contributions, it becomes apparent that the user has been trying to insert certain external links since the end of December on several pages, against the wishes of the editors of those pages. It seems very likely that the user has a financial interest in the books that he/she repeatedly keeps linking to. (Sometimes quite clumsily, such as "Google search for...".) Also, the user has been warned a few times. Junes 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This page vs. Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

Could someone please adjust the text of this page to make it clear when someone should list a vandal here vs. at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress? I understand that this page gets faster response, but if that is the case, why would anyone ever list a vandal there? If there is not a clear answer to this, perhaps WP:VIP should be deleted or merged into this page.--Srleffler 18:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• From VIP: This page is for editors to report repeated vandalism for administrator overview and response, or to report vandals for which a simple block is insufficient (such as multiple sockpuppet accounts).. AIV is for simple vandalism. We look, we block, normally not for more than 24 hours, unless it is an old repeat vandal, especially the ones we've become fond of have a lot of experience with. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Post here if someone has vandalized enough to get at least {{test3}} or {{test4}}, and then vandalized again. If not, post somewhere else. -- SCZenz 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Example vandal

Isn't the Willy_on_wheels example in the header just undeserved publicity and should be replaced with a permanently banned fictional username such as User:Example vandal name or the like? Femto 14:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Something I hadn't seen before

LivesinMom'sBasement (talk · contribs) apparently made several nonsense articles that were speedied before the user was brought to AIV. Because they were speedied, without knowing the article titles there isn't (AFAIK) a way to connect the user to the articles. Is there another way to see deleted edits belonging to a user? --Syrthiss 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As a developer. I'm guessing that's the only way to track them down, unless you know the names of the articles. Guettarda 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Kate's tool briefly had a "browse deleted contribs" feature that was disabled when Special:Undelete was re-locked to admins only a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, that feature of Kate's is not availble to anyone anymore, even admins. But asking Kate to switch that back on would be one way. -Splash^talk 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it would be switched on. It was turned off as the result of Brion turning off several features of Special:Undelete after the "Jimbo rapes babies" edit summary vandal. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant have Kate switch the feature back on in his tool so that admins can use it. I presume a non-admin would just get a "you are not part of the Cabal" message. -Splash^talk 23:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice... but I'm not really sure how it would be able determine that a certain user is a sysop or not, as it isn't part of the local wiki (and hopefully those aren't forwarded with HTTP GET requests). I think it could be done if the code were moved into a Special page... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Shhhh. Interiot to the rescue again. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reduce Vandalism

• I love that Wikipedia is an open, free encyclopedia but wouldn't it it still be open and free if one were required to have a free user account to edit a page? Wouldn't this cut down the amount of vandalism since most is done by non-registered users anyhow? Plus, it would eliminate the issue of multiple users on one IP address. Of course, a vandal could create new usernames but this would require a little more effort on their part and would inevitably result in less vandalism and less time resolving the issues they've created making for a better organized, more accountable Wikipedia.. Pattersonc 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This issue is perenially brought up, and has never garnered much support. Primarily, the idea of requiring user registration runs contrary to the concept of a wiki, and there have been some fantastic contributions from anonymous editors. In addition, people often do not wish to sign up for an account, but they're fine with editing. Any restrictions on anonymous editing will inevitably lower the amount of vandalism...but it will also lower the amount of truly good contributions. In fact, I have seen lots of spelling errors and typos fixed by anons while on RC patrol. The point is valid, but it's an undue burden on the user to require registration. In my opinion, of course. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree that anon users do make excellent contributions, registration is a painless process that still preserves one's anonymity (more so, since your IP is no longer visible to non-admins). In my experience, about 50% of edits by anon users are vandalism, and about 90% of vandalism comes from anon users. If Wikipedia is serious about curbing vandalism, blocking anon edits would be the quickest way to instantly reduce it. See: User:MisterHand/Gripes About Wikipedia/Why are anonymous edits allowed? -- MisterHand 16:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sure it's a painless process. Does everyone who visits Wikipedia realize that? Obviously not, because some people are tireless anon contributors. Forcing it might drive them away. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you all for your replies. The arguments for both sides are quite valid. Though I don't feel a free registration is contrary to concept of Wikipedia, I do agree that many non-registered readers make countless typo edits which is an added value to this site. I can only imagine such a decison will only be warranted if, and only if, vandalism becomes so rampant that it is nearly uncontrolable. I hope that is never the case. Pattersonc 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, registering is a painless process, but it would be an equally painless process for vandals. Requiring people to register might deter the very laziest anon vandals, but other vandals would just register and vandalise. In the meantime, you would lose the good editors that don't wish to register. If 90% of vandalism comes from anon users, that to me is an arguement to keep anon edits, as anon edits often come under more scrutiny. Forcing everyone to register would simply push the anon vandalism into non-anon vandalism, where it might get lost in the traffic. MartinRe 14:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I think MartinRe has made a good argument here. Requiring registration gives vandals the ability to disguise themselves as legitimate contributors and poses a barrier to helpful anons who don't want to be bothered. Plenty of capable people avoid "registered user only" forums. Ande B 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I fully support Pattersonc's position. Requiring users to register prior to accepting their contributions would at least create a modicum of threshold rather than laying out the red carpet for idiots. Maikel 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem with template

A user, -=-=DARK=-=-, appears to be a vandal, but his username causes template:vandal to break, leaving . Any solutions? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just got a result at Village Pump, who recommended {{vandal|1=-=-=DARK=-=-}} to produce -=-=DARK=-=- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Is Far Too Soft On Vandals

I just can't believe how feeble the measures against vandals, and especially habitual vandals, are. A clear case of vandalism should result in the IP being blocked for a serious amount of time without warning. I mean, are we an encyclopedia or some form of chat room? What I find especially bizarre is that when I spot a vandal and his history shows that he has been at it repeatedly, i. e. it wasn't just an isolated case of "newbie sandboxing", then there is still all this red tape before the culprit sees even the slightest form of forfeit. Maikel 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know any of the rouge admins. --maru (talk) contribs 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Me, I'm more of a bisque colour. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Rouge admin, heh. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer blue. --Nlu (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Squidward

Anybody know how to stop this vandal? JHMM13 (T | C) 04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is he coming in from multiple IPs? I blocked one. android79 05:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked a different one, so at least two IPs. --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like people are blocking them left and right now. --Nlu (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem looks somewhat resolved. Good work, admins. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can find a list of all IPs used by this vandal at User:Mushroom/Squidward. Mushroom (Talk) 07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This vandal is coming in on tons of different addresses, so they're probably open proxies of some sort. Thankfully whoever is responsible for this is linking to the same Image:Squid.jpg file as some sort of signature, making it quite painless to reverse the damage. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good thing: this vandal is helping us to identify a lot of open proxies. By the way, I think we can safely assume that all of them are open proxies. If no one objects, I will make all those blocks indefinite. Mushroom (Talk) 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How was he able to use so many different IPs? I must have reverted over 150 of these, all seminly different IPS. Paul August ☎ 05:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He probably used one of those programs that anonymize a connection using a list of open proxies. Mushroom (Talk) 05:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

I'm not sure if the following counts as vandalism or a content dispute. Someone deleted about half of an article I wrote (after flagging it as POV first) and when the ensuing discussion didn't resolve it I put up an rfc. Six other people joined in and none of them agreed with the other guy. Still, he persists in deleting large chunks of text. I am inclined to call this vandalism, so I put up a warning on his talk page (not an official template because I wasn't sure). To no avail. Actually, it's a bit silly not to mention what this is about. It's Hiroshima (film). DirkvdM 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. Coming from an impartial view, everyone has all got a bit het up about it. I'm inclined to say not vandalism, just good old stubborness. A suggestion to you - put the NPOV tag on the section, and let the discussion continue. While I understand your reluctance for the NPOV tag, bear in mind that the tag says the POV is disputed, it is not a clear statement that the article has a POV. That will let the text stand and give time for discussion to arrive at a final version. I have to say, however, that the fact that Cubdriver lost most credence in the discussion when it transpired that they hadn't seen the film, and then then shot themself in the foot by their mailicious edit to the comment tag in the last edit - that, I think, is more likely vandalism, and above all is childish. If you want a neutral observer to try and help out resolving it, drop me a note, I'm happy to try and resolve it. Kcordina 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree except for one essential point; there has already been an rfc and several people have responded to it and as far as I can see it has already been settled. Is there a next step I could take after the rfc, other than crying 'vandalism'? DirkvdM 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

True, it does seem something more 'official' is needed. You could try a request for mediation, or ask the cabal for help - see Wikipedia:Mediation, they are often efficient at solving things. Kcordina 09:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may interject, I think that this is a form of vandalism. I don't see this as being any different than blanking random pages for no reason. You all have established that the material is good for the article and yet he keeps deleting it. Yes it is childish, but it is also blanking and I would consider it vandalism. Just my opinion. Kntrabssi 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to what to do in this case

In the past I have had to revert some changes that Ghosts&empties made to various articles. I placed warnings on their talk page as a result. They also provide a number of good edits as well though. Now just recently they have blanked out the warnings that were put on their talk page by me. I have since reverted that change. If this was done as some sort of change in the user's attitude, that they wanted to sort of clean up their act or whatever, then I'd be fine with them as an editor. But when they make these nonsense edits while also adding good edits they seem more like either a schizophrenic or a troll. So, what can/should be done? Does any admin think that a warning from an admin and not just me, the common editor, would help? Dismas|^(talk) 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• While I am not yet an admin, I have experience in this. Blanking talk pages IS vandalism. I would issue him another warning, preferably using the "final warning" template if you are at that point. If this were an IP and not a registered user, I would suggest that the IP is shared. However, since the user is logged in, it seems like there are either two users using this, or that the user has the "save my password" function enabled. I would issue him a warning, and watch him. If he vandalizes again, please post him here for a block. Thanks :-) Kntrabssi 22:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Some people don't like it when others blank their talk pages, and in the case of vandals it's bad form, but there technically isn't anything wrong with blanking your own talk page. Some users do that instead of archiving, since everything is in the history anyway. So blocking someone for blanking their own talk page might not be the best idea; wait for them to vandalize articles or article talk pages. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal from AP:AIV

In the case that an accused vandal is believes what he/she is doing is not vandalism, do they have the right to remove themselves from this page? I didn't think that was the case, I was under the impression that Admins are the only ones who should remove names from this page! Kntrabssi 02:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• One should definitely not remove oneself from the page - that is clear vandalism (1) undesirably editing the comments of others, and (2) removing vandalism warnings. As far as a non-admin third party, I'd be pretty wary of that as well. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tags and their removal

According to WP:V removing dispute tags if there is clearily outlined dispute on the talk page is a vandalism. On the the other hand it is not obvious if the dispute is clearily outlined here. Please provide a clear description what statements and why are disputed in the article. If possible please consider using narrower tags like {{Sectfact}}, {{Dubious}}, {{Disputed}} or {Disputeabout|Topic of dispute}}, etc. Do you really dispute everything in the article? Try to settle your your dispute on the talk page, or represent two views on a problem (such and such authors state this, but other authors object that, etc.), if some facts are unsourced or the sources are dubious, please use the {{fact}} or {{Verify credibility}} credibility template. If you want me to protect the article while you are settling your dispute - I can do it for you, just ask. abakharev 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you, by chance, in the wrong place? -Splash^talk 03:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, someone listed a tag-removal/replacement dispute as vandalism. I suppose this is the explanation that this is a bad thing. See my talk page for more. android79 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for this?

Frenchgurl89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks highly suspicious, check out userpage and talk page. Are there any guidelines for this sort of thing? Makemi 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah use common sense. I've removed to contact info from the user page and added the page to my watchlist. It looks dodgy but it may be some kid who just doesn't understand. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How recent does vandalism need to be?

I recently listed a vandal who'd left an abusive edit summary on Australian Greens about 16 hours previously, after having been warned and blocked some days back. This was removed with comment 'no action--no edits in last 16 hours'. How recent does vandalism have to be to qualify for action? I appreciate that there's not much to be gained by blocking anon IPs for ancient edits, but the only time period mentioned on the project page is 24 hours. (Note also that the edit on the Greens page took place about 11 pm on a Saturday night Australian time, which probably has something to do with why nobody noticed it immediately.) --Calair 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the "24 hour" notice should be changed. I see this as an emergency hotline - stop that vandal now!

There's also the problem with IP addresses that some (many?) of them are shared, so we can't block for long. If the most we can do is block for a few hours, then 16 hours later is actually longer than the period of time they would have been blocked for.

All that said, I'm a new admin and my interpretation of what should go here and what shouldn't is maybe best sent to /dev/null :) --kingboyk 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind the point of this page is not to punish vandals, it's to keep vandals from continuing their vandalism. If they've stopped vandalizing for the time being -- and 16 hours is pretty clearly a cessation -- then banning them serves no point. Persistant vandalism over a long period of time is a different problem. Powers 03:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

From a newbie's perspective, it isn't at all clear how to deal with this sort of thing. I first came here via Wikipedia:Vandalism, which says "If the vandal strikes again [after receiving warning templates], list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism", without any indication that this is only for vandalism in the last few hours. The intro to this page says that it is "intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with persistent vandals", and while it does say "within the last few hours", the only hint as to how big that 'few' might be is the subsequent mention of "last 24 hours". If you view the page as being for dealing with vandalism in progress, context suggests that that 'few' might be just a couple of hours, but without that context all a newbie has to go on is the "last 24 hours".

Perhaps somebody familiar with how the vandalism process works could review Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and adjust them so they better reflect that process? I'm happy to follow procedure, but it gets frustrating when I can't tell what that procedure is from reading the relevant pages. --Calair 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that. It's not even particularly clear for a new admin :-) For a start, how about reducing "24 hours" drastically? Anything more than a couple of hours old gets a generally dismissive reaction here from what I've seen so far. --kingboyk 04:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've change 24 hours to 2 hours. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again changed, made it consistent with the "past few hours" that are mentioned earlier. Femto 18:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: If a user has vandalised but now seems to have stopped they can be added/moved to the 'Watchlist' section of WP:RFI (the new name for WP:VIP). Users placed there will be added to the bot's watchlist in the CVU IRC channel. This does not apply in the case of users who have received a previous recent block (as they will have automatically been blacklisted). Petros471 14:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Keep in mind the point of this page is not to punish vandals, it's to keep vandals from continuing their vandalism." This is precisely the problem...vandals should be punished--and swiftly. I don't care if it's a week old. This permissive attitude is why it's so bad, especially with the main page article...this is extra true of repeat offenders, even if it's a month old or they've done it several times in a day and I've seen admins not stop vandals even when they've vandalized several times in a day. Rlevse 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Fine, but that's not what this page is for. This is the emergency hotline, 911. If you're reporting a week old incident you don't call 911. --kingboyk 02:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You miss the whole point, if they were blocked/punished right away, we wouldn't have old cases. And those that have a history should be blocked even faster at their next occurence. Also, everyone should be required to have a user account that is tied to an email address, it'd be much harder for these scum to hide then.Rlevse 14:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, my own personal policy about it is that if I find recent vandalism, I report it here if there have been previous warnings or bannings (if there is a history of it). Its up to the admins as to what to do about them - I only report what I find. If this is not Wiki policy, or is inconvenient for admins, I'm sure before too long one of them will be kind enough to leave me a nice message directing me to the correct methodology. The problem is, as I see it, that there are many policy procedures - not all of them are clear cut - and many different warning (etc) templates that can be used. That's not a bad thing in my opinion, as it can cover all bases and is useful in specifying what a given problem is.

Kingboyk, you mentioned that shared IPs can only be blocked for short periods of time. I'm personally concerned about this. Some of these IPs seem to be particularly persistant and sometimes quite damaging to Wikipedia. My suggestion would be that, while we should perhaps show *slightly* more leniency for shared IPs, if vandalism is persistant from a certain IP, it should be blocked indefinately. If its a school's IP, then its the problem of the school - not of Wikipedia. Of course, the school should probably be entitled to appeal the block and promise to clamp down on vandalism. It is a waste of time to be going about reverting edits along the lines of "My teacher/Sarah Smith looks like a potato" etc, when editors such as myself could best serve Wiki by improving and creating articles, rather than undoing the work of immature 'pranksters'. I've never been banned, but I assume some kind of message is created automatically for people who attempt to edit Wikipedia from blocked IPs, explaining the reason, and outlining a way to appeal the deicision made? That should be where, in my opinion, Wikipedia's responsibility ends. --Mal 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you made that excellent point over at the blocking policy page I'd probably support it. - brenneman^{T}{L} 10:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I believe strongly enough in it that I have now made the proposal Aaron. Feel free to add your vote. --Mal 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see there nor on the talk page. Rlevse 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminatorius bot blanks warnings

On March 15, 2006, the User:Terminatorius bot created by User:Audriusa blanked warnings from several user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning template where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. The bot was later stopped and the changes were reverted by the bot owner. Do you think this type of bot is a good idea? Please see discussion at WP:BRFA#User:Terminatorius - automated blanking of the vandal anonymous IP talk pages Wuzzy 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) The bot was later abandoned, and this discussion is now closed. Wuzzy 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony Stewart vandal: how to handle?

An anonymous user has repeatedly, albeit infrequently (on the order of days, or sometimes weeks between incidents) vandalized the Tony Stewart article by changing Tony Stewart's middle name of "Wayne" to "Maximus." Complicating the problem is that the vandal uses different IPs; although many have come from 69.223.11.14, which has been blocked in the past for this, other IPs in the 69.*.*.* range have been used as well. What's the appropriate way to handle this? Chuck 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the best way to handle this is to keep that page (or related pages) on your watchlist and wait to see if it happens again. We can't really predict which IP he's going to come from next, but it's not so severe that page protection is warranted. Keep at it, soldier! JHMM13 (T | C) 15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Squidward

Check RC...he's back again. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind...seemed to be under control moments after it started. Good work Tawkerbot, JHMM13 (T | C) 15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive procedure proposal

The current management of items that were dealt with is difficult to follow; this page could use more transparency, by means of archiving. It's impossible to get an easy notion of how requests are handled. When an item is removed from the alerts, one has to go back to an earlier revision just to check the blocklog link. Try finding out whether there was a comment given in an incident that happened only yesterday.

It should not be expected from people who have listed an item that they go rooting through the edit history for possible replies. The edit summaries are not the best place for comments, especially for advice directed at inexperienced users who may never see it. Thus the suggestion is to add the following footer (the instructions in the header will have to be changed accordingly, too):

Done (or some other heading)

---

Move items that were dealt with below here. Archive when appropriate: Put the current pageID in the revision link, delete the old requests, put "archive" in the edit summary. — Revision prior to last archive: [1]

---

"List empty" does not have to mean "page empty". The additional keystrokes for the copy&paste of (re)moved items are more than offset by not having to explain every action. The edit summary for the basic 'done' removal can be as simple as "rm" or "one done, 2 alerts remain". The revision links will create a continuous chain of archive pages. (Should these prove cumbersome or of little use, skip that part, then one still would have only to seek the archive summaries in the edit history). It becomes possible to add later clarifications. All content that is related to an alert stays together and comments remain retraceable at a glance. Femto 19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, nobody answered but that also means nobody supported it :) I think vandal fighting is enough of a chore already without adding an extra level of bureacracy. I have no problems with delving into the history to find out what happened. That said, you were right to be bold given that nobody objected, so let's give it a run and see how it goes. --kingboyk 18:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the beauty is that this should not create any extra levels of bureaucracy at all; instead it increases the efficiency of the bureaucracy that is already there. It just shifts from its current obscurity to a place where the most people get the most use of it. Femto 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of the "Done" section. Are reports to be moved there after an admin has blocked, after they have reviewed, or after both? I have a feeling that there will be a ton of reports, and keeping up with the archiving process will be quite a task. Could someone just clarify the use of this? --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Those reports will be moved that would have been re-moved instead, nothing changes there. Femto 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about the purpose of this. I don't like the second 'edit' button either. Gflores ^Talk 19:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above two users. It's just extra work piled on for the vandal fighters to do while more vandalism takes place. tv316 19:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and went ahead and removed it. I don't like too but was too busy fighting vandals to catch the proposal before. My apologies.Gator (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Gator. The whole point behind this page was to have something hassle-free. And anyway, there's hardly ever the need to delve into the archives here. Still, you do get points for being bold, as does Gator. --W(t) 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My main intention was not creating an archive, but making it possible to keep the reports and their comments together. Maybe I'm just strange, but does nobody want to check the blocklog links to see what happened? How much time do you spend waiting for an earlier revision with the links or the edit history to come up?

Frankly I have no idea how much a certain amount of convenience is worth, compared to an uncertain amount of potential waste. How much time do admins spend typing "rm, blocked" or c&p'ing the removed IPs into the edit summary? These explanations seem like unnecessary work because it's obvious that when a report is removed, it is done - unless there remains no trace of it. The six or seven keystrokes for the move appear rather insignificant compared to the earlier work of going through the contributions, blocking, explaining the block, and all. If there's little need to delve into the archives, why do you spend time on detailed edit summaries that many people may never go look for? Femto 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer it the way it used to be as well. But it was worth a try! AnnH ♫ 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What if..?

What if the user doesn't vandalize often, but it appears that every edit over the past few months has been vandalism? They have recieved 9 warnings, never responded, and have been temporarily blocked. I would list on the page, but it doesn't seem to fall under the specific criteria. The user is Cackletta76 Atropos 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not every edit is vandalism. I just checked. Most, but not all. If it were all, I would eventually indef block as it was clear that the account was being used only to vandalise. As it stands, I would block the next time he vandalises. Let me know and I'll do it.Gator (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity

If They have not vandalized very recently (past 2 hours) since the last warning ({{test3}} or {{test4}}), what is to be done?

Surely it's not good if someone is warned and then takes to vandalizing pages no-one is watching (so that nobody ever notices the vandalism within two hours).

I also reworded \header to remove the implication that the warning has to be recent. Septentrionalis 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We have recent changes patrollers who spot a lot of vandalism even if the page isn't watched (and there's bots and IRC feeds too). The problem with "stale" reports is that they are often for IP addresses, and quite often shared IPs. In the latter case we can't really block them hours after the event, and we are cautious with regards to any IP address. The extra burden on admins having to review and dismiss stale reports is not imho offset by the small number of rampant vandals caught through those reports. --kingboyk 22:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

65.6.4.143

The user 65.6.4.143 has been repeatedly vandalizing and is now mounting personal attacks on those who have attempted to stop him/her. Please place a temporary block at the earliest convenience.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked. Please put any further alerts on the project page, not the talk page.--Adam ^(talk) 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that it's always a good idea to look at the block list before posting. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Colour

Doesn't #ABECF8 look nice instead of the pea-soup green, which reminds me of the film The Exorcist? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

We need to have RandiRice blocked. The Flattbush article keeps getting vandalized. It's been well over 20 times that they have blanked out the entire thing, not to mention the vandalising that they do. All of their contributions have been vandalism. It's time to ban them from wikipedia. P.S. The flattbush article itself should stay up they have no right to get it pulled. They only aim to lie to the public and create this "triumphant" Communist image, when it could not be further from the truth and in actuality, the oppressive, exploitative ideals of Marxism should be out there being exposed, hidden by any means instead of being glorified at a respectable site like Wikipedia. Let's begin to consider banning them.I wrote the whole article and they do not want the real story out, because it makes the band (RandiRice) look rather untruthful.Stabinator 04:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the non-encyclopedic content from the article; I believe that's what User:RancidRice was trying to do. The section in question was ridiculously non-encyclopedic. Hopefully there won't be any further conflicts, but perhaps that's wishful thinking. JDoorjam Talk 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They blanked out the whole thing, not me. Rancid RIce was being whiney like a teenage girl when he doesnt get his way...he was just being difficult. That was the real history of the band and was checked by numerous people involved throughout the history. I don't really understand where you're coming from. Stabinator 18:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Prolific & Obscene Vandal

In tracing the vandalism of a page, I came across user 72.12.201.5 This is a very prolific vandal, from a high school. Much of the vandalism seems to be personal insults, probably of people he knows, but there is quite a lot of obscenities on political figures and racist comments. This user has had several blocks in the last couple of months, including 3 this last week. And 4 Final warnings including 2 this week. He may have switched to a new id: 72.20.128.64 which has just appeared this week, and reinstated one of his vandalizations. CFLeon 00:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

reported vandalism, got no response

Merecat Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

"merecat" is repeatedly deleting my comments on a talk page. With very poor excuses possibly realistically relevant to one line, merecat deletes entire paragraphs of information.

I am new to wikipedia, so I would appreciate any insights anybody might have on what to do about this behavior.

It is plainly obvious that merecat is not operating in good faith.

I'd like to see wikipedia recuse merecat from the discussion, and usher in some Republicans with level heads to help in the neutral-ification process.

Please help, nobody should have to put up with this kind of abuse. Prometheuspan 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was done because what you are dealing with is not vandalism. It's a content dispute. I would recommend using the steps on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve the dispute. Start with trying to discuss things with the user if you haven't already. If you think administrator intervention is required, bring it up on the administrator's noticeboard. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Change in time for reporting

I object to the change from 24 hours because often vandalism doesn't get spotted for quite a few hours. For example I added Special:Contributions/72.1.206.21 who last vandalized at 18:02, 24 April 2006 but it was claimed that this was too late. Yet the contribs sugggest the same user has attacked the Racism article only 3 days ago. If problematic ips are continually not blocked the amount of vandalism will increase making more work for everyone. Arniep 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there are 3 reasons I (only myself speaking here) won't block users for vandalism over 20 minutes old:

1. WP:BLOCK states "blocks are preventative rather than punitive," 24 hours is a reasonably long time ago, and no damage is occurring now.
2. I at least consider this page a place to get admin attention about a vandal who is harming Wikipedia now, like an emergency hotline.
3. I just am not rouge enough to do it. ;-)

Prodego ^talk 02:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If an ip shows a large amount of vandalism a block is preventative not punative. Arniep 11:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What you have to remember is that the vandalism you saw from a day ago might be from a different person than who is using the IP right now. Unless we're absolutely certain it's a static IP (i.e. editing similar articles over several days) then we can't really block them if it's been an hour since they edited, much less 24. And yes, this is meant as an emergency line. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, so if an ip address' edits are just about all vandalism but it never seems to be blocked where should that be reported? Arniep

I would say that you should gather evidence that (either) all recent edits or all edits (full stop) are vandalism, and include it with your report here. If it's clear from the style/targets of the vandalism that it's the same person who's been vandalising from that IP in all cases (implying a static or near-static IP), include that information too. I'm considering writing a "vandalism-only IP" template for inclusion on the talk page of IPs whose edits are *all* vandalism (either since they began or in the past few months). Fourohfour 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what {{repeat vandal}} is used for? Leithp 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite; what I had in mind was specifically for anonymous IP editors who had a fair number of edits, all of which were vandalism (either in the past few months or since they started). This is more important for IPs because, as we know, they can be shared by valid users and we have to be sure before blocking them. One variant I have in mind may include wording to the effect that "the pattern of edits indicates the same user or group of users, indicating a static IP", but I'm not too happy with the wording. Ah well, you get the picture. Fourohfour 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the user that originally led me to ask this question Special:Contributions/72.1.206.21 has been blocked twice recently, so maybe they do qualify as a repeat vandal? Arniep 01:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, as that is the IP for Ottawa Carleton District School Board, which means a school IP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So school ips cannot be tagged repeat vandals even if every one of their edits has been vandalism? Arniep 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That certainly conflicts with my experience. I'm sure I've seen several school IPs with that tag. Leithp 17:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the point...

...in time at which to start a new line of warnings? Before, they told me it was each month. Judging by the results of me spamming the place, it's not enough by a long shot.

So what do I do if an IP vandalises 2, 3, or 5 days after the "last chance" they were given? Give them another one? Or thank them for experimenting with Wikipedia? Or just revert their crap, leaving their talk page to rot with no warnings, after which they are asked nicely to stop vandalising by the next admin who comes along and sees that the vandal hasn't been warned for an entire week? I know IP blocking isn't a punitive measure, but think what the vandals learn from this: vandalise every few days, and it's OK.

So once again. Into sections of what lengh should the warnings on a persistent vandal's talk page be divided? Months? Days? Hours?

P.S. I'm not talking about public access IPs, that's different. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 12:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:UWLS might help you out with the organization of the warnings, but usually what I do, is if it's a shared IP I'll start with test1/bv, and then skip test2 and go to test3 if it's blatant. If it's static, use your best judgement from the previous warnings recieved on their page, but just remember that most admins won't block unless the user has been given sufficent warning (such as the test series, ect). --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And the static/dynamic thing is the most misunderstood part of the page I think. I often see "warned earlier today" or "blocked earlier today" but the new vandalism are completely different pages, so there's a 99% chance it's someone else. It's tricky. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think vandals stick to one type of page. Arniep 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, that's only one kind of vandal. Regardless: Yes, the system suggested at UWLS is precisely what I use. See here for an example: User talk:$13DG3 - vandalized himself into 6 consecutive warnings and called it a day. Tomorrow, the guy will come back from school and vandalize some more, to which a new pack of very serious warnings will follow. The vandalism is pretty static, he vandalises at his leisure, not straining himself. Maybe even doing his homework in between. But he will not be blocked, because you have to really ask for it. I'm telling you, the system is flawed. P.S. I'm not reporting the guy, just making a point: he is just one out of thousands. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true the test template system doesn't work very well as more often than not people don't place a warning when reverting, however maybe this User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof might improve things, but I think it really needs to become more automated. Arniep 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Chodorkovskiy - this page is not for listing accounts that commit only vandalism, over a period of time. Such accounts can be, and are, perma-blocked, but if you notice one that needs this, mention it on WP:AN/I, not here - this page is, as people have said above, for quick responses to currently occuring vandalism. BTW, the account you mentioned above has been perma-blocked already. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I already have VandalProof. Problem is, I don't like warning people who just got a Last Warning a week ago. You're right, though. VandalProof does help : ).

Thanks for the link to WP:AN/I, I'll go check it out.

Alright! I know you guys (and gals) are doing your best and it's never enough for someone. I'll stop ranting now. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 05:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We really need to change the so-called "Last Warning" template, to make it clear that it is a "If-you-do-more-vandalism-in-the-next-few-hours,-you-will-be-blocked." not "If-this-account(or-IP-address)-ever-does-any-more-vandalism,-you-will-be-blocked." That's simply a misunderstanding by our hard working vandal fighters. Chodorkovskiy, or anyone else, it'd be great if you would correct this... JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate for Non-Admins to Remove Alerts?

I frequently notice alerts being added to this page about users who clearly do not meet the criteria for administrative intervention (i.e. have not vandalized in 24hrs, have barely vandalized at all, are involved in a content dispute rather than vandalism, etc.), and I was wondering if would be considered appropriate for a non-admin such as myself to remove these alerts? (Naturally I would leave an edit summary explaining the reasons for removing the alert.) Typically, I just leave them alone and wait for admins to go through the list and clear each user; however, there are many times, such as today, when there is an enormous backlog of alerts, many of which do not really require admin intervention, and it seems that removing the unnecessary alerts would allow for admins to deal with the real vandals more promptly. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It would definatly be approprite for non-admins to remove users who have been blocked. Prodego ^talk 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what about users who have not been blocked, yet whom there is clearly no reason to block nor for an admin to investigate? For instance, 129.170.202.3 (talk · contribs) was just listed as having vandalized past his final warning, yet he has not been warned nor has he vandalized since the 23rd of April, and it is a shared IP registered to Dartmouth College--clearly no reason for an admin to intervene just yet, and sysops could spend more time dealing with actual vandalism in progress. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to you and other trustworthy non-admins remove users who do not meet the criteria the page requires, namely: The vandal has to have been warned and the vandal has to have vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning. Prodego ^talk 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Question is who qualifies as a "trustworthy nonadmin" and who doesn't? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 23:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

An admin would still need to check if the block has been applied so not much work is saved by removing the entry by a non-admin. In the case of an erronious listing, I have always felt comfortable to point out the error (eg "content dispute") in a comment but let an admin make the final call on the matter. Agathoclea 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that there would be any need to check that a block had been applied if an established user puts in the edit summary something like; Remove 14.329.86.47, blocked by Curps, 24 hrs. List NOT EMPTY. I see such edit summmaries frequently, and often I don't know if the editor in question is an admin or not. I'd only check if I had reason not to trust someone. AnnH ♫ 23:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable. I certainly wouldn't remove any borderline vandals or anything an admin might want to look at--i.e., an admin may want to get involved in a content dispute. I would just remove alerts that clearly do not belong per Prodego's reasoning above. Thanks! I wanted to make sure that I wouldn't cause more stress for myself and anothers as a result of my ignorance about some rule regarding AIV, when I really just want to alleviate a tid bit of stress off the admins. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Having non-admins flag up the less obvious block cases with a comment could certainly be helpful. This allows the obvious cases to get first priority attention, and once they are all blocked an admin can look at the less obvious cases and deal with them as they feel appropriate. Please do remove blocked users though, that helps a lot (unless I'm being continually edit conflicted as happened earlier today ;-) ). Petros471 21:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is very appropriate for non-admins to do as many admin tasks as possible. Everybody should act like an admin. Admins are nothing special: we're just editors with an extra button and feature or two. Adminship is no big deal. So, yes, please do follow the same protocols as admins should do and do all the admin jobs that you can do without the extra button. Everyone will benefit from this. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why WP:AIV shouldn't be treated like WP:AFD. Per Wikipedia:Deletion process, signed in non-admins may close deletion discussions which a) don't require admin tools (i.e. haven't resulted in 'delete') and b) are uncontroversial. I wholeheartedly endorse applying the same procedure to AIV submissions. At the very least non-admins should feel free to hold entries ("hasn't vandalised since last warning, leaving on for a bit") and then remove them when they reach a reasonable threshhold. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, more work from non admins would be great as long as it's done well. A number of tasks could be handled, such as noting editors that have not vandalized since the last warning, but hold them on the page for follow up checking, removing obvious non blocking candidates, etc. But keep in mind that doing so one is taking responsibility for that editors edits if one falsely removes an entry with bad faith. In fact doing that after a warning is very blockworthy. - Taxman ^Talk 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea, as long as it is done properly. My big concern here is that vandals could potentially remove themselves or other vandals from the WP:AIV page. Perhaps there should be a request page, where people could put themselves down for this responsibility. However, this could also have the same issue that WP:AIV has, in that it would require an admin to watch it, and approve users. So, I guess I'm split on this. On one hand, I like the idea, but on the other hand, it could be tricky to make it work.--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. It might not be worth the extra overhead. How about no removing by non admins, just commenting. That's still pretty helpful, and we could still block people that try to use the page for ill. Either way messing with this page would be a pretty quick way to get blocked. - Taxman ^Talk 04:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well as there didn't seem to be much objection to my helping out with this, I've already removed a few alerts. If anyone disagrees with any of my actions or finds it inappropriate for me to be doing this, please drop a note on my talk page and I will stop at once. I've had AIV on my watchlist for some time and have made a habit out of helping other non-admins to hold off vandalism onslaughts while we wait for an admin to arrive, so I think I have a decent idea of what vandals truly need administrator attention and which ones don't (as I believe many non-admins do). I personally agree that this should be dealt with in much the same way as WP:AfD, that if an action does not require administrator tools there is no problem for non-admins to act, so long as their actions are appropriate. This page is pretty closely monitored, so I think that any questionable removals will be spotted, and users whose actions are not helpful will be told to stop; thus, I don't think there is really any need for more overhead. But anyway, I just want to help out here, so if my actions are found to be unhelpful I will have no problem stopping at once. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly support you (and anyone else) doing this sort of work. I don't think it's right to make a rule that only admins can remove entries; if a vandal removes themselves, list them on WP:AN/I (where entries are never removed, they are archived), and it will be dealt with. The principle on Wikipedia is that anyone can do anything, until they show themselves to be screwing it up too much. The only reason we even have the sysop bit is that some abilities are too hard to quickly fix if they are misused, so we restrict who has access to them. Admins are not smarter than anyone else and it's great that you are helping out in this way. Thanks for asking, though - more discussion is also always a good and useful thing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)