This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I'm not the sort of admin who insists on endless warnings before blocking an obvious vandal, but you're making a lot of reports of IPs that have very few edits, even including unsuccessful attempts that were caught by the filter, or that aren't active at the time of the report. Blocking an IP after they've finished a vandalism spree doesn't accomplish much (unless it's a static IP with a long history, in which case a longer block can be considered). Take, for example Special:Contributions/2601:40F:4102:A750:B9BA:E261:517:67EC—two edits ever (both unhelpful, but hardly serious disruption), and two filter log entries; they had a {{uw-vandal2}} from ClueBot after their most recent edit, but you reported them to AIV without any further edits—unsurprisingly, it was declined by another admin. For obvious vandalism (ie not just harmless tests like adding random characters), one warning, preferably something like {{uw-vandal3}}, is sufficient but you're unlikely to get a block without any warning for anything short of libel. Please be a little more conservative in your AIV reports in future. Thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
