Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 6

How to deal with a static school IP with 50% vandal edits

I reported * 193.1.172.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism following final warning on 12 feb 2007. e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] . This report was removed without comment. Is a softblock not in order here or does the IP need 100% vandal edits to qualify for a softblock? Curtains99 12:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, and warnings don't accumulate. The user needs a final warning and to commit a new vandalism in a, say, 30 minutes interval, to be blocked. We don't block for final warnings delivered two weeks ago. -- ReyBrujo 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that an editor can make vandal edits every day and accumulate infinite 'final warnings' so long as those edits are spaced out nicely? From a pragmatic point of view, is a temporary block of anonymous editors from a vandalising IP not an improvement on wasting positive contributors time on reversions? Every vandal edit to Wikipedia reduces the credibility of the encylopedia in its entirety but also removes time for valid contributions. At some point we have to say that the potential loss of valid contributions for a short time from a vandalising shared IP is less that the negative effects of allowing them to continue undeterred. Curtains99 14:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And another in the past 2 minutes. Curtains99 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That could be a number of different students. So rather than moaning about inactivity - give them a warning and then see what happens. Most kids stop when they notice they are watched. BTW 50% vandalims is a good rate for a school. Agathoclea 14:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I already have placed a test-template so no warning needed until there is some more vandalism. Agathoclea 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't surprising that some users repeatedly vandalise. They know they can get away with it. When they've accumulated a few "final warnings" and nothing has happened I'm sure they feel encouraged to keep on vandalising. Suriel1981 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the warning should be rephrased to

'This is your final warning. If you continue to vandalize you will be blocked unless you wait a few hours in which case you will get another final warning.'

In any case, this is my last Wikipedia edit. It's curtains for Curtains99 Curtains99 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

on a positive note, 50% vandal edits means 50% of them were good edits. We can revert bad edits. We cant add good edits that might have been missed due to an innapropriate block! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Valid point. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought a softblock would be appropriate, even if 50% of the edits are good. Hopefully whoever is making those edits will make an account. --Tango 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a softblock would be desirable, as I also have misgivings about anonymous users being able to play the system to their own vandalising purpose otherwise.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Curtains99 is absolutely correct, we are way too nice to these vandals, that's why to do it so much. If we block a whole school, maybe the good editors there will help by putting peer pressure on the bad ones to stop it and get accounts.Rlevse 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps consider listing at Wikipedia:Abuse Reports rather than or as well as here. That could be quite effective for schools - particularly if it leads to detentions! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You can't list an IP there unless it's already been blocked at least 5 times. But it appears that so long as a vandal takes a 30-minute break after receiving a final warning, the IP will never be blocked in the first place. -- Zsero 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a cost to the community when well-intentioned editors such as Curtains99 report that they are giving up in disgust? I too am close to that, having tried to give a good-faith effort on the Recent Changes Patrol. Buddhipriya 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also seriously considered giving up editing on wikipedia, given the ability of anonymous IP vandals to play the system with their vandalism, given the somewhat lax attitudes to vandalism and the strangely inconsistent views amongst some admins about what consitutes recent vandalising activity, leading to some IP addresses gathering a whole series of "final warningsw" with apparently nothing done.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is always {{longterm4im}} _→AzaToth 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there? Is that warning appropriate for IPs? Some admins here appear to think not. -- Zsero 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo, "When I am asked to look in to cases of admin abuse, and I choose to do so, I generally find myself amazed at how nice we are to complete maniacs, and for how long." Just do what you have to do to stop it, as you aren't required to coddle these people. Give the longterm4im next time, and if the reviewing admin is wise they will soft block the IP after the IP violates that warning. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote by Jimbo together with the comment by User:Zsero and ordinary users' comments indicate at least three things: (a) that there is a lack of clarity amongst admins of what is appropriate action to take, and (b) there is certainly a lack of clarity amongst ordinary users about what to do, particularly given the apparent inconsistent approaches taken by the body of admins. Meanwhile, (c) through the gaps brought about by these inconsistencies, vandals are running around, playing the system, and making the lives of people trying to make serious contributions much more difficult. It is made more difficult by reversions of vandalism that could and should be prevented from taking up valuable time which could have been spent adding good content. As I said in a previous message, it seems that little may be able to be done about it, as that may require time spent specifying more clearly the processes that should be followed in dealing with vandals, and this time may well not be available, because of the amount of time spent trying to combat the vandals!  DDStretch  (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that those willing to take the time should - no need to take the time discuss this. There needs to be at least a standard convention for this type of thing. This type of long term abuse cannot go unpunished because the vandals don't log in. As you said, they are playing the system. As long as legitimate, registered users aren't hurt by the move I don't see what the problem is. 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Emailing a shared IP?

When admins block a shared IP that has an abuse email address, what should be done? Who should email them, etc? --AW 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, putting together an abuse report is a pain in the rear, and usually accomplishes nothing -- the ISPs generally aren't responsive, and in some ways can't afford to be (brings up customer privacy, all sorts of fun legal issues). Which means I only do it in really, really dire circumstances. But, I say that as somebody who prefers to keep on-wiki business on the wiki. I have submitted a few abuse reports, and I've sometimes been able to get a response for the really unsavory kiddos. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious bot parameters change

Does anybody else find this change suspicious? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been several suspicious bot parameter edits. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At least four different new users. IrishGuy ^talk 21:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes. User creates account, messes with AIV and then creates multiple advert articles that have already been speedily deleted. Next vandal change, list him here. If the users have similar edits and account creation patterns (check for fake articles and stuff too, get a sockpuppet check. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

Yeah, it's been happening frequently today: [8], [9], [10]. Just revert and warn them for disruption. -- Merope 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It isent just any regular first timing vandal that makes those changes. (In my opinion), It would have to be somebody pretty experienced to wikipedia making those changes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up behind this. From now on, I will block on site that behavior. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say somebody doing this knows very well it is disruptive, and warnings may not be needed. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Block immediately if that is their first few edits. I've blocked the two that were not already blocked. -- Gogo Dodo 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to bode well with me either. Though I was never an IRC user, why would such a discussion ensue on IRC to decide to turn off the bot? This seems like clear disruption if the users continued to do so despite being approached on their talk pages.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Would it be wise to move the bot settings onto a protected/semi-protected subpage? Or would that muck things up too much? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the bot read the pages text version or the version with transcluded templates? It might be a good idea to create a template with it and include it (would deter changes and could actually be protecte). Just a reccomendation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this any worse than a vandal blanking the page here? Changing the bot parameters cannot make the bot go crazy, so all it does is turn it off. Just turn it back on, and warn/block the user who turned it off. No need to lock up a light switch. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We could add a "GoCrazy" parameter to the string and then just block anyone who turned it on... :) —Krellis (Talk) 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Could a parameter be added to the bot to readjust the changes to this if it is edited? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to defeat the purpose of having parameters in the first place, would it not? If we're going to do that, we might as well just hard-code them entirely, but then we lose the ability to disable malfunctioning individual features (as we did when FixInstructions was found to have a bug), or for the community to determine consensus (if it ever changes) on the backlog limits. As HighInBC so aptly put it, do we really need to lock up the light switch? The parameters can be re-set easily enough, it doesn't really cause any significant harm. Once the vandals realize it's not going to accomplish anything (other than getting themselves blocked very quickly), they'll presumably give up. —Krellis (Talk) 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Krellis and HighInBC on this one, though its disruptive to change the parameters it doesn't mean that it would be any different from vandals toying around with the page or any other page for that matter. No need to lock the "light switch" as said above. The shiny button (block button) does it better :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use {{Schoolblock}} and {{Anonblock}} as Block Reasons

These templates transclude very nicely onto the page seen by blocked users, and provide extremely good reasoning and instructions for schoolchildren, teachers, and others. Coincidentally, there is an optional comment parameter ({{Schoolblock|comment goes here}}) in both of the templates. Thanks guys! alphachimp 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend commenting on the length of the block when using these templates, which allows users to know when the blocks have expired. It may notify vandals when they can start disrupting again, but a motivated vandal can easily find that out from the block log anyway. --Ginkgo100^talk 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly agree -- especially on longer blocks, or even any block on a widely shared IP address, we should be careful what we say in those block messages. These templates are a very good thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It tells a user how long they are blocked for in the message blocked users get, anyway. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Having never been blocked, I did not actually know this! --Ginkgo100^talk 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually discovered it when I visited an elementary school that was blocked and tried using a computer to edit. alphachimp 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"+" symbol

At the top of the talk page I see a "+" symbol on a tab. I used to see one on the article itself; it was very useful! Does anyone know whether it is missing for everyone, and if so, where it went to? Notinasnaid 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It only works on talk pages, IIRC. Rarely do we need to add a section (what the + means) to an article in this manner. 〈REDVEЯS〉 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It definitely used to work on the article page connected to this talk page, and it was extremely useful. It allowed reports to be added without any risk of edit conflict; sometimes I otherwise have to try half a dozen times. Notinasnaid 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, as I though it made no sense at all, I rarely have edit conflicts as I'm using script for reporting. _→AzaToth 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone uses script to report vandals. I have had edit conflicts in the past, particularly in periods of multiple vandalism reporting. If there is a way to avoid this, it would help "mere mortals" without script. Bencherlite 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got EC'd twice when I was trying to report an inappropriate username. Of course, I was also on the phone and trying to type with one hand. Hbdragon88 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to call reports in to the Wikimedia foundation! --Ginkgo100^talk 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I have clarified that I was waiting on hold for the dumb Office Depot clerk to connect me to their ink department? Hbdragon88 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please could you put it back, or explain how to.Found it, and restored it. __NEWSECTIONLINK__ . Thanks. Notinasnaid 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To avoid edit conflicts, you could assemble the report somewhere else (notepad, etc.) and then copy and paste it in so you are not sitting in the page so long to enter it. The quicker people are in and out, the better really. :) Bubba hotep 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I had been reduced to doing that, but surely using a method that completely avoids edit conflicts is better? Notinasnaid 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and of course I am more susceptible to edit conflicts because I generally like to put a proper edit summary in for removing reports if I'm not going to block, so I need to do it "live" really. Bubba hotep 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Edit conflicts seem to occur in my experience very frequently on WP:AIV including just now on here!)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But the plus sign creates new sections, which I don't think are removed by the bot. I'm going to test that now. And the reports shouldn't be in different sections anyway. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it does remove sections. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying that out. I was going to earlier on to test whether it interferes with the bot. I didn't want to cause an edit conflict though! ;) Bubba hotep 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You added here [11], bot removed report [12], but removed the section break as a "comment" [13] after another editor reported a different vandal and was blocked. -- Gogo Dodo 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Bubba hotep 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll point this out to Krellis. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I hear my name? Why yes, I did! I'll play around with this a bit in my sandbox and see if I can make something smart happen. I'll report back here later. —Krellis (Talk) 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(De-indenting; that's a lot of colons...) Well, one thing you can do is simply not enter a "Subject/headline" when using the "+" to add a report - it'll result in a blank edit summary, but it will also add the report w/o a new header, and it seems to avoid the possibility of edit conflicts. As far as the bot goes... I'm not sure what the best behavior would be. Would we want it to always remove any additional headings underneath the "=== User-reported ===" header? Do that all the time (whenever it sees it), or only when we're removing another report? Or only when we're removing the report immediately below the header? It's a little complicated, unfortunately. One thought I had - put the template in the header, then the report below it. That way the bot will remove the header as the report, and the line(s) below as comments to the report. Not exactly the prettiest thing in the world, of course... Let me know what everyone thinks is best, and I can make it happen - easiest might just be not entering anything as the header when using "+" though. —Krellis (Talk) 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can figure out a good way for the bot to remove surplus sections, I wouldn't mind those at all -- whatever makes it easiest to keep this place moving and fulfilling its purpose. The best idea I've got is if it counts the number of sections on the page, and removes any section headings after the X-th section, which could probably be a variable (numsections, say). Note it would only remove the heading line, not the contents. I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives

I am not an administrator but I was bold and requested the archival of this page by MiszaBot. Werdnabot is not currently working. I changed the AutoArchivingNotice template. The current archive is Archive 4 but its size is 422 KB! I divided it. The other part is in Archive 5. The bot will start archiving in Archive 6. I removed the archive indexer code because it will be written by MiszaBot now. I also added the auto=long parameter in the archive box so that links to archives are generated automatically instead of manually. I didn't change the HBC AIV helperbots code. If any administrator thinks that this is a harmful change, feel free to revert what I did. Thank you. --Meno25 09:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless it has changed since this thread, the MiszaBots don't do archive indexing. Even if they did do it in the same way as Werdnabot, it would not be compatible with the type of archive index already in place and created by HBC Archive Indexerbot, so I have re-placed the HBC Archive Indexerbot opt-in. Thanks for taking the initiative and making the MiszaBot request, though, I'd been meaning to do so but hadn't gotten around to it. —Krellis (Talk) 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Leniency against persistent vandals

I am opening a request for comment concerning what I perceive to be excessive leniency towards persistent vandals who space out their disruptive edits in order to evade blocks by taking advantage of the requirement that "the vandal [must be] active now". This practice has already been objected to by several editors in How to deal with a static school IP with 50% vandal edits (an earlier discussion), and most recently by myself on an editor's talk page. I believe that, in the light of the arguments brought forth in the said above section, the policy should be redefined, or at least made explicit. I would appreciate any community input on the issue. CounterFX 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Going through the archives, I have realised that there is overwhelming precedent for this issue (most recent discussions listed first):

• Do warnings time-out?
• What's the definition of "active now"?
• Removing stale reports
• Removing a report without acting on it
• What does it take to get blocked?
• Time since final warning
• Gripe: People are issuing final warnings and reporting them here at the same time
• Please help me with this!
• Again, too soft
• After a recent "final warning"
• New Idea - see also User:Dar-Ape/Persistent vandalism
• Removal of valid vandals
• Any way to block periodic vandals?
• How many "last warnings" does someone get?
• User: 218.188.3.113
• Question
• “We really, really do mean it this time, just you watch out, I’m warning you” template?
• Have we gone soft?

I have only gone back as far as July 2006; however, my point is that the sheer quantity of these debates (several of which are quite lengthy) is reason enough for the policy to be corrected. The present situation is opening a grave loophole in Wikipedia policy which is readily being exploited by several long-term vandals. CounterFX 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have been a fairly active vandal hunter for months now, and I have not run into problems with admins refusing to block this type of vandalism. From what I have seen, most admins deal with each vandal report on a case-by-case basis, weigh the facts on each case upon what is just and prudent for each case. I have reported MANY vandals that have the editing pattern you describe here. I usually leave a nice note on AIV that says something like "I know that the standard policy is to only block vandals that are currently editing, and while this report is for a stale edit, it is clear that this IP has been used to vandalise several times a day for a while now" and EVERY time I have reported a vandal of this nature, they have been blocked. It seems to me that admins are NOT blindly applying the policy of "Only active in the past 30 minutes" and have clearly taken WP:IAR to heart in dealing with all sorts of abuses. Yes, the slow-moving vandal does take longer to get blocked, but thats because it often takes a week or two to generate enough edits to make it clear that it is a vandalism only IP. One can create a written plan for dealing with this, though it feels kinda WP:CREEPy. My own personal preference is to continue to let admins deal with each vandal on a case-by-case basis and continue the fine work they are doing. And hey, if some admin rejects a block request, remember that a) if the vandal returns, report them again, and chances are they will eventually be blocked b) if they never return, who cares, they didn't need to be blocked anyways. Anyways, that's alot more than 2 cents, but its how I feel on this one. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, although I have only been involved with WP:AIV for a relatively short time, it has been already made clear to me that the 1-hour activity-window criterion is, in fact, the standard practice and is, contrary to what you claim, being blindly applied. Kindly refer to this discussion (or to any of the ones listed above) to see my point. I strongly feel that the policy should be changed to make it clear that this criterion, by itself, is not justifiable a reason for dismissing a submitted vandal report. CounterFX 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins tend to reject these drawn-out reports because they are too complicated to handle with the snap-block decision process used at WP:AIV. Such persistent and disruptive vandals tend to be better reported and "attended to" at WP:ANI, not here. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

At the top of the WP:ANI page you will find a notice stating "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV". I am not disputing your observation, but if that is the case, then it is all the more reason to correct the wording of both WP:AIV and WP:ANI in order to clarify the separation between the reporting of trivial cases and the reporting of persistent vandals. CounterFX 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means correct and/or clarify them (and discuss on relevant talk pages). The notices should reflect practice. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

<-return To respond to CounterFX: what I see is a specific dispute with a specific admin over a single judgement call, not some systemic failure to deal with long-term anonymous vandals. It is debatable whether the IP in question meets the threshold for a long-term persistant vandal. 14 edits is pretty miniscule, IMHO. The kind of vandals I am thinking of when I wrote the above have scores of nothing but vandalous edits spread over weeks and weeks. I would disagree that this IP represents a long-term vandal. Bring up someone with 100 vandalous edits with the once or twice a day pattern you describe. As a counter example, look at: this contrib list and this block log and this dif from AIV. I reported a slow moving vandal that showed up 2-3 times a day and spaced their edits over several hours. My report by all acounts was stale (7 hours after last edit and warning) and yet, within 3 minutes of my report, the block was issued. What seems to be at issue here is the difference between a punitive block and a damage control block. Blocking a user who has not edited for hours simply because 3 hours ago they blanked a page does not seem to be stopping anything. 14 edits does not a major problem make. The people at RFPP will be glad to semiprotect your page for you, and when this guy has 2 months of bad edits showing the block avoidance behavior you describe, come back and renominate for block here. You will get a much better result. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My case did, as you said, start off as "a specific dispute with a specific admin". In good faith, I followed the normal convention of dispute resolution, stating my objection on the admin's talk page and even asking for a third opinion. The editor who gave the third opinion recommended a short-term block, yet the admin upheld his original decision and was subsequently backed by two other editors on grounds that "AIV has worked this way for a long time" and that it is "normal policy". Subsequently, I realised that my situation now concerned a policy issue, and proceeded to open this RfC.

I really hope I misunderstood what you meant by your last post. Are you expecting me to stay watching this once-a-day vandal, reverting his blatant deletions and issuing ridiculously-named "final" warnings for 2 months before he will get blocked? Come on! 14 edits from a vandalism-only IP is more than sufficient; the fact that some vandals are getting the chance to reach the 100-edit mark is completely pathetic. I really hope you will not take these (admittedly angry) comments personally, but I honestly cannot stand this lax attitude favouring the vandals.

And, just to drive my point home, take a look here. Hmmm... an unjustified act of deletion. Vandal? Let's check the user's contribs. Nopes, only a single objectionable case, no grounds for blocking. Took place two hours ago; we would have 'missed' it anyway. Oh well. What's that you're saying? That this user's edits are identical to another user's? And yet another user's? All spaced out with a minimum of one-day intervals? Heck, this guy must be really smart. Nah, no use reporting him to WP:AIV; that's already been tried. No point in reverting his vandalism either; rest assured it'd be back in two days' time. Let him be. Leave the cleaning up to the editcount-obsessed or the newbies who have no better contributions to make.

Of course, all you have to do to revert the deletion is to click here. But I'll leave that up to you.

CounterFX 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. breathe.. in... out... relaxed? Good. Now the point I was hoping to make is that blocks are not meant to be punitive. The admins aren't punishing people for vandalising wikipedia. The block is about damage control: stopping a vandalism problem. No, my recommendation is NOT to stalk this IP address waiting for someone to use it to vandalise again. My recommendation is to go find some article to edit and work on it. If you find a vandal, and you think they need a block to control the damage being created, ask at AIV, but if they aren't blocked, move on. Simply wanting 14 edits over the course of a month to be "enough" to block an IP address for a long time does not mean that the admins will agree with you. Work with the admins to improve wikipedia; don't rail against them for failing to do your bidding. There are ways to deal with this problem, complaining isn't one of them. The whole point is you shouldn't be hunting specific IP addresses waiting for them to vandalise enough to be blocked. Interestingly, in the time we have been having this disussion I have requested blocks for 2 more vandals which were the kind of long-term, time-spaced vandals you claim aren't being blocked, and yes, they were blocked. They had far more than 14 bad edits, however. The kind of vandal you describe is routinely blocked by admins here, the problem is, the example you gave is not that kind of vandal. That doesn't mean you should wait around for that person to become that kind of vandal. It means leave them alone. If they continue to be a problem, renominate them again. If they aren't blocked, don't take it as a personal affront. Find another article that needs improvement, and make it better. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if the problem is sockpuppetry, (users using multiple IPs or usernames to evade blocks) then you can report the problem at suspected sock puppets or better yet, just go to WP:RFPP and ask them to semiprotect the page in question. Then, no IP can vandalise the page. AIV is for dealing solely with simple vandalism by a single IP that is currently vandalizing. That does NOT MEAN that users being disruptive in other ways will not be blocked. WP:ANI is exactly for dealing with the kinds of problems that require some investigation to deal with rather than simply quick blocks. Its not a question of allowing disruptions to go on, its simply reporting it to the right forum to deal with it. You don't call the paramedics if your house is broken into... likewise, you should report complex problems to the correct source. AIV is not designed to handle every kind of disruption. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Jayron32 has explained this very well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be succinct and straight-to-the-point:

• I am fully aware that blocks are meant to be preventive and not punitive; however, it should more importantly be ensured that avoidance of the latter does not hinder execution of the former. In the vast majority of cases, failing to block the persistent vandals is only resulting in further disruptions which could have been prevented.
• I find it unfair that this discussion is being treated as if I were merely "complaining" about a specific decision. In my second post above, I linked to ample discussions where dozens of editors faced the same issue that I have presented.
• Please stop being difficult. "[Do not stay] waiting for someone to use [the IP in question] to vandalise again" - the same person is persistently using the said IP to perform identical acts of vandalism. On the same article, same sections, same content.
• If my specific case indeed belonged to WP:ANI instead of WP:AIV, then the header text of both articles should be reworded, as it is grossly misleading.
• Notwithstanding the above point, I find it highly incompetent of admins to simply dismiss (without taking action) any reports of vandalism which they deem require more investigation than they are ready (or capable) of performing. The least they could do is to refer them to (or just leave them intact for) someone else who can handle them. Wikipedia is slowly turning into a bureaucracy: for a simple report, editors are finding themselves being bounced from WP:AIV to WP:ANI and now on to WP:SSP. As if we are the ones who are requesting a favour from admins by trying to fight vandalism.

To sum up, I am severely disappointed to find that no-one else appears to be preoccupied about this present state of complacency. I did not open this RfC to bring one or two admins round to my point-of-view, but to close what I perceived to be a serious loophole in Wikipedia policy. I would like to thank the two editors who contributed to this discussion; however, I am considering this RfC closed from my side. Jayron32: If you want to reply to my last set of statements, feel free to do so, but I will not be posting again unless a point actually worth discussing is raised. Over and out.

CounterFX 14:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that we're already pushing the boundaries of vandalism control. The original idea was to allow everyone to edit every page, all the time. One could argue that that's an impractical idea (and I agree with you) but the point is that right now we're doing our best to balance freedom with damage control. I know it can be frustrating - believe me, it's just as frustrating for us to remove reports as it is for you to have them removed - but Wikipedia has made it this far, and it's not about to fall apart now. We'll get through it, one way or another. Kafziel ^Talk 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have sympathy with both "sides" of this. I nearly always find my reports at AIV blocked. Because I'm interested in becoming an admin and want to develop my skills (I know that inappropriate blocks are sometimes a problem, especially with new admins) I follow through with admins on the rare occasions when I think they've been unduly lenient. This has taught me much. For an example, see Kafziel's talk page just today. --Dweller 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What this means

If we are blocking vandals for edits they made a while ago, that is a punitive block. There is no way to get around the fact that a block for vandalism which is not currently happening is punitive. I'm not passing any judgement on whether or not that's good, but it's important that people who support this realize it, and accept it. -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to add a few words to this discussion, based on my two-years experience in blocking vandals. I have about 1,000 articles on my watchlist, articles I have written myself either completely or for the greater part (the many thousands of small changes to other articles are not on my watchlist). Every day I have to spend one to two hours checking all these changes, half of which consist of vandalism. These vandalisms may have been reverted already (but I have to check anyway) or still have to be reverted. In other words vandals cause me to waste minimum a whole hour every day with their antics. How many other serious contributors find themselves in the same position ? In other words, vandals cause a waste of time of thousands of hours (probably much more) every day, when checking the watchlist. And I’m not speaking yet of the vast amount of time that goes in the intervention against vandalism (user warnings, blocking…). In other words, vandalism is a serious problem on Wikipedia. How to deal with this ? Can we remain as lenient as we have been up to now or are stronger measures needed ? This has been debated many times on this talk page, with leniency being favored in the end. I think of myself that I have been rather lenient when blocking vandals. But then I start wondering what is more important : being nice and lenient or the huge waste of precious time caused by this policy. I think the time has come to become more stricter in our policies and not shy away from harsher measures. This should be debated again. JoJan 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Usernames at AIV

A couple of users insist on bringing every username that contain words like 'lol', 'omg' and anything that might be construed as even slightly amusing to AIV. Can we have a rule that goes something like this: "Unless usernames contain one of the seven dirty words, they are not blockable upon sight"? OK, so maybe I'm joking, but only a little bit. It's kinda tiresome to remove usernames which "might be a clear violation of username policy" (that was seriously what someone wrote a couple of nights ago). I think this is what RFCN is for. – riana_dzasta 07:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It should go without saying, that if you even consider saying a name "might" be any kind of violation, then it should go to RFCN. I try to limit names reported here to attacks, profanity, and impersonators. Leebo ^T/C 07:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It should, but apparently it doesn't. I fail to see how User:Omeislol is violating the username policy (even if we consider his edits about 'Omes', a group of people who are the opposite of emos). – riana_dzasta 08:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can usually tell the ones that no admins think are clear violations because they sit on AIV for a while until the backlog of real vandals is clear. Because that's when it usually happens, at backlog time! I think we need to let the users who are reporting them know when we come across one we aren't going to block, because I am fairly sure it is just a handful of people who are reporting them on a regular basis. Bubba hotep 08:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about trying to notify the users who list this type of name, in particular - I understand that there are too many reports to always notify someone when a report they make isn't blocked, but I suspect that these people just aren't paying attention to the history and seeing their entries removed, or, even if they are, simply don't understand that they're not appropriate. Some of the edit summaries I've seen recently when these are removed make it clear that some admins are (justifiably) getting quite frustrated with them - better notification when this happens is probably the best way to limit it. I'll keep an eye out for this type of entry being removed, and try to notify some of the reporters myself if they haven't already been notified. —Krellis (Talk) 16:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, my summaries are probably more frustrated than some peoples' ;) It's difficult to notify people at peak backlog hour, but I'll try harder to do that from now on. – riana_dzasta 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bubba hotep because most of the editors that report username violation includes me and now I only report those names which include the "seven dirty words" as well as those which include other harsher words such as those mixed with slangs and I have made over 150 reports in the last 2 months and I have always checked the history to see if it was blocked or removed and it is quite frustrating for the Admins in dealing with these "violaters" but in the end I believe its for the good and to riana_dzasta's reply as I remember Iam the only one that uses the word "might" and Iam sorry if it might be giving you headache but if the Admins wont do their job then who would? the Bureaucrats..nahh..--Cometstyles 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh Cometstyles, it's no headache :) That's what we signed up for, innit? But yes, I do believe that only usernames which are egregiously offensive (swear words, attacks on fellow editors, etc) should be reported to AIV. In the interests of assuming good faith, a discussion at RFCN is more appropriate for the less obvious cases. – riana_dzasta 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And again. This sort of thing is rather tiresome and not at all clear-cut. WP:RFCN is the appropriate forum for borderline cases like this. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the most egregious offenders are using WP:TWINKLE, which it appears sort of automatically points them here. Maybe contact the coder of that and ask them to make it more clear what should go here and what should go on RFC/N? Just a thought. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to TWINKLE (which I use, and hope I'm not an "egregious offender" - the vast majority of the ones I report wind up being blocked, so I take that as positive reinforcement :)), the default is to present a strongly-worded JavaScript pop-up when using the "report -> username" option, with quite clear instructions that it should only be used if the username is a blatant violation, and otherwise should be reported manually to RFCN. I'm not sure what more AzaToth could do to prevent bad reports, though I'm sure he'd be open to suggestions. —Krellis (Talk) 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Twinkle user here. Maybe best to ask AzaToth to give two username options, one labeled "Report Borderline Username Violation" which goes to the Username comment page, and "Report Outright Username Violation" that goes here? - Denny 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't mean to imply that all TWINKLE users get it wrong (in fact, it's a very low percentage) or that TWINKLE itself gets it wrong, but as both of you have suggested, perhaps make it clearer to those (perhaps newer users) who use it what goes where. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have been told that blatantly offensive usernames get reported here (such as Shitknocker36 (talk · contribs) or Timshithead (talk · contribs)), but usernames that are less obvious should go to RFC/U. Recently, if I see a username that might violate rules, I been careful what to report it to. Acalamari 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what you are supposed to do. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What annoys me is when someone posts a username that is a clear violation and some admin removes it with an edit summary to the effect of "Username violations don't go here". I haven't seen it happen often, but it is extremely annoying when it does happen, especially when the RFCN page then sits there with person after person putting "Disallow, obvious violation" for the next however many hours for no apparent reason while the user remains unblocked. An example off the top of my head (not one I reported though) is this diff. I would imagine that most admins know that obvious cases are to be reported here, but apparently some don't.--Dycedarg ж 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does the header not mention anything about the fact that people should post offensive username block requests here? It is a de facto process, but the lack of such wording gives a sense that such reports don't belong here. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One tricky issue is that something could be a clear violation of user name policy, but not fall into the "attacks and profanity" range. I think for ones that are clear, but not threatening, the user should be asked to change the name, but that's just me. If there is no response, then maybe it could go to AIV since it's a clear violation and requests to change it have been ignored. Leebo ^T/C 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion one should follow the standard process of posting {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} on the user's talkpage in cases like those you describe, but my main point is that there is no reason to post an obvious violation on WP:RFCN instead of here after doing so. RFCN is a page to request comment about possibly questionable usernames (hence the name), not a place to post obvious violations for blocking. It is highly inefficient to do so, because far fewer admins watch the page and many don't seem to block obvious cases until hours of pointless debate has ensued. People moving obvious violations from here to RFCN (which happens rather regularly) is nothing more than a complete waste of everyone's time.--Dycedarg ж 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the end, I think just notifying people would be the best option. (To my knowledge, all the ones I've reported have been blocked, but I try to report only the most egregious cases. And I do use Twinkle.) Maybe develop a bit that could go on WP:U to refer people to, or a short guideline? Granted, people that come in with "EditorNameIsAnInsertProfanityHere" type ones should be blocked on sight, but someone that picks "Britney Spears" or something is probably just unaware it's not allowed and should be dealt with a lot more gently. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do not forget that HighInBC changed the helperbot to accept the {{userlinks}} template so blatantly offensive usernames could be reported here without them being removed as a comment. He changed it because it was an issue I had brought up some time ago. The userlinks template is to be used here when reporting offensive usernames. However, there are times when some administrators have removed offensive names, and I or another user had to go to RFC/U and report it there, where we were have been reminided that we could have reported it to AIV (which we already did in the first place). Acalamari 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT see any pointer to WP:RFCN at the top of this article with the other pointers to related pages. Why not? JRSpriggs 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is one there now, how does it look? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that it mention WP:U specifically. Perhaps instead of the current "obvious vandals", something like "obvious or blatant violations of WP:U"? Or is that too vague? We could combine the two: "obvious vandals or blatant violations of WP:U"? I'm not sure any concise language is going to fully capture what we want to say, but I think either of my latter two suggestions is at least a slight improvement over the current. Thoughts? —Krellis (Talk) 05:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To Xaosflux: Thanks for putting that pointer into the header. JRSpriggs 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Better now? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that looks pretty good now. Time will tell if it actually has any impact, of course. —Krellis (Talk) 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New one on me - user removed report before admin review

Earlier this evening a user removed the report I filed about her disruptive creation/addition to articles. If you look at this diff of her action, you will see what I saw when I checked the board a couple of minutes later. My mouth dropped! I could not believe the gall. I trust admins check the histories prior but this one could have easily slipped through. Ronbo76 03:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It happens from time to time. Usually somebody catches it, though you might want to monitor your own postings for this very reason. In this particular case, another admin caught it and the editor has been blocked for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo 04:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally the way I watch is to put the user talkpage on my Watchlist. Then I can see the block and determine if the vandal becomes active again with warnings. There have been some users/IPs who were not blocked and that makes me wonder. Ronbo76 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lighten Up

It seems apparent that in the great search for knowledge, that Wikipedian editors have become drunk on their own power. What is and is not contsructive can hardly be rationalized by a single editor, this goes completely against Wikipedia's standards of pluralistic community based knowledge. While some changes made on pages are obvious blatant acts of vandalisms, it is important to notice the ethical and moral grey area in declaring what is an act of vandalism.Bswartz 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this can be interpreted any other way than as childish vandalism. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, your other edits to talk pages such as here dont help in your, "its not vandalism" argument. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, the user has been blocked for vandalism (by me). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Neat record, I read it twice. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What, you read the itsy bitsy writing in the middle, around the hole? --Dweller 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Both sides. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is it a bit bizarre hearing a "this goes against everything the community stands for" argument from somebody who registered two days ago, and has spent a good chunk of the interim trolling? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculous. Have a look at his contributions, if they can be called that. xC | ☎ 12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Last Warning?

Why is it that after having gone through all four steps, and we place

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to SOME PAGE, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

on the user's talk page, and when they vandalize again, we do nothing? They saw the warning, and they did it again. They should be blocked. This is not the current policy on Wikipedia, so something (either the text of this message or the policy) needs to be changed (crossposted to Template:Test4) McKay 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "we do nothing". I issue blocks for vandalism past {{uw-test4}}, and looking at the history of the listings on WP:AIV it;s clear that it is the rule, rather than the exception. I can see where sometimes it is not needed, where a user appears not to have read their user talk page, performed one or two more vandal edits, and then (apparently having read the warning) stopped, but was not listed on AIV until many hours later or the next day. In that case, a block is not warranted -- remember that the purpose of blocking is to protect Wikipedia, not to issue punishment. --MCB 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you see someone has recently vandalized after a final warning, you should report them to WP:AIV. If no one actually reports them, and no administrator has been involved in granting warnings in regards to the vandalism, we have no way of knowing. Michael 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone has correctly received a final warning and they vandalise after having sufficient time to see and read it and they are reported to AIV, then they will be blocked. Not all final warnings are issued correctly. --Tango 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone still vandalizes articles after a final warning and they are pending an administrator's block, you can post this message {{subst:Non-admin fwarn}} .

Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please consider changing your behavior when the block expires.

This is only if they severely vandalize after a final warning and have already been reported. -- Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Then they will be added to Category:Fwarn recipients. :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To whom do we go to request punishment for vandals?

In the previous section of talk, MCB (talk · contribs) said "... that the purpose of blocking is to protect Wikipedia, not to issue punishment.". So my question is — to whom do we go to request punishment for vandals, if not here? And how can they be punished, if not by blocking? Must we go to arbitration and request that the Wikipedia foundation sue them for the damage they are inflicting on us? Obviously ridiculous. JRSpriggs 12:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt Wikipedia would sue the vandals - blocking indefinitely is sufficient enough. -- TheChrisD™ 12:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We really aren't interested in punishment. Why should we be? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that there will ever be a mechanism for punishing vandals. It would be too hard. If there was a punishment, it would have to be something severe because I'm sure that most vandals don't care that they're blocked. James086^Talk 12:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals have not broken any laws. Notinasnaid 12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals have not even done anything wrong; it's just that their objectives are not on the same wavelength as yours. CounterFX 12:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all they do is waste people's time, deface pages and add more work for devoted editors. Sickening. Disregarding that, they haven't broken any laws. Would WP policies be considered laws? Anyway, I agree with TheChrisD (talk · contribs) - indef blocks are the need of the hour. xC | ☎ 13:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefblock are not always practical. IP's change and are sometimes shared. If you find vandals "sickening" then stay away from this page, you don't have the right temperment for vandal fighting. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to vandalism, not the vandals, as sickening. I appreciate your advice, although I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't follow it - I RC patrol pretty much every day and try to contribute in whatever way I can to the project. Thanks for the comment about my temperment [sic], I always look forward to strangers giving me advice about things they don't know about. Many thanks xC | ☎ 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, internet "harassment" is illegal... but finding someone to prosecute is highly unlikely. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But vandalism isn't harassment. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the foundation rarely if ever takes legal action against vandals. And Wikipedia itself is not interested in punishment. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)}

18:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If we were to have a particularly disruptive vandal we could refer it to their ISP's abuse department, they could issue a punishment for TOS violations, but it's not worth trying to file lawsuits 99.999999% of the time. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt an ISP abuse department would do anything. I've heard stories about the difficulty of getting them to go after hackers that perform DoS attacks, let alone people doing trivial damage to a website that can be reversed in seconds without any particular difficulty.--Dycedarg ж 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If vandalism has been going for ages, the user has a long block record and has not changed, try WP:ABUSE. -- ReyBrujo 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:ABUSE says "Make sure that the IP in question has been blocked at least five times in recent history, or the request will be rejected.". That means that we have to get by the bleeding-hearts here five times before they will even take the case. JRSpriggs 05:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately? We can't just go to an ISP and say "Look, this ip blanked this article yesterday." You need to demonstrate you have tried very hard to modify the behavior of the user, that you have warned him several times, and that all efforts have been void. Many times network administrators just say "Block this range" because they can't control that, which is a pity because we are going against our spirit of being free. This is the last step, similar to calling to one's parents before expelling the child from school. Remember, a plane that lands is not the news, the plane that crash is. We aren't praised for all the users who have reformed themselves, but blamed for every ip that is being blocked. -- ReyBrujo 05:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any bleeding hearts here! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Punish? With what? And how? If people are persistent problems, we can block them. If they can't take a hint, we can break out a few heavier tools. I've only taken things to an ISP once, and it was for a very serious problem. I'd really prefer to limit our jurisdiction to on-wiki events. That said, truly persistent problems can and should receive longer blocks, in my opinion -- not to punish them, but to prevent a pointless drain on resources which could be better spent elsewhere. Just my opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies As an aside to this thread, it seems that when I created the section below, I inadvertantly deleted some of the discussion of this thread. This occured at 18:51 March 19, 2007 (UTC). I don't know how that happened, but I'm sorry that it did, and I'll ensure that it doesn't happen again. Sincerely, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IPvandal tag

Unlike the {{vandal}} and {{userlinks}} tags, the {{IPvandal}} tag requires a space between the asterisk and the template, otherwise the IPaddress and links aren't displayed properly. This should either be noted by a hidden note, or fixed. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that {{ipvandal}} seems to be ok. Am I correct, or missing something? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I haven't noticed that problem, that I can recall. =\ I'm usually running whatever version of Firefox is installed on the computer I happen to be at, at the time, if that makes any difference? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be some temporary thing as the system or whatever catches up with the tag. Instead of the standard username, talk, contribs, whois, etc., I'm seeing wiki tags like [[000.000.00.0]] and others. I use Firefox, too. I'll assume it's all transient and I'm going crazy. Carry on! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding "1=" to username in vandal/userlinks templates

There has been a complaint that usernames containing equal signs (like Billbailey=legend) "break" templates like {{vandal}}/{{userlinks}}. The solution is simple: prefix such usernames with "1=" (or "User=") when putting them in as parameters. This isn't necessary for other usernames, but doesn't hurt either. That is, "1=" could safely and usefully be prefixed as the default format. May I suggest that the WP:AIV header and header template be modified to add the "1=" accordingly?

Registered Users:
* {{Vandal|1=username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~
* {{Userlinks|1=username}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~

This would also require a coding change in the HBC AIV helperbot, to parse the username looking for the "Vandal|1=username" first, then look for just "Vandal|username" if the "1=" isn't found. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The HBC AIV helperbot changes needed are already done, as was discussed here. The only problem I see with adding this to the instructions is that it may confuse first-time contributors to have it in the instructions, as they may not fully understand the template syntax. One thing I would certainly suggest is talking to AzaToth about having Twinkle updated to use "1=" when reporting users, and doing the same with the other various anti-vandalism tools that report to AIV. That would certainly get some traction behind the concept. —Krellis (Talk) 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about just a disclaimer for those situations? If it's not needed it's just extra code to cause confustion and names with equal-signs are the minority. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If the code is being copied-and-pasted from the header to the "user-reported" area, having it read as shown above requires no extra keystrokes on the part of the user; as with the older version, you just replace "username" with the actual username, and "optional brief reason for listing (keep it short)" with, well, that, and preview/save your changes. Adding the extra instruction to include "1=" for these names and exclude it for those names would be more confusing. As for "minority", look at it this way: without "1=" the template works for most usernames; with "1=" the template works for all usernames. Last I checked, "all" was a greater number than "most". You were arguing in favor of handling the greater number, not the lesser number, right? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 10:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Account creation

I must apologize: I reported inaccurately that an abnormally large number of accounts were created over a period of five minutes. What happened was that all account creations were reported during the database resynch, while other edits were not, so that it appeared as though account creation was the only editing going on. That said, the current account creation rate is ~6/minute during the daytime, measuring in the several thousand per day. Is there a record somewhere of the statistics of editing from all accounts? The vast majority of them can't have been editing meaningfully. I'm assuming someone has checked that the accounts aren't someone carefully aquiring a monopoly on Wikipedia usernames. Michaelbusch 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Guide to Administrator intervention against vandalism

Because there are a lot of incorrect reports, I thought maybe a guide would help reporters out, so I made Wikipedia:Guide to Administrator intervention against vandalism. It needs work, I've probably missed things, so please help build it. Also I'm not sure if the {{proposed}} belongs there, it's a bit like a guideline, but I'd say it's more like WP:GRFA which doesn't have a guideline tag so it may not apply here either. Any comments or additions are very welcome. James086^Talk 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I can see it going far. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. My only issue so far is the use of an actual IP (belonging to the Icelandic Ministry of Education) in the Anons / IP addresses section - I would recommend changing this to some bogus address (a private IP perhaps?) in case newbies or vandals try to copy'n'paste it to see what happens. CounterFX 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Use 127.0.0.1 Viridae^Talk 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. I'd certainly support it making it a guideline or official help page. Kafziel ^Talk 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Took a glance, made a few changes. Very nice idea, good work putting it together. We should probably find a nice, prominent place to link it. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fan. As for where to link it from, I would say the top of the AIV page would be a good place, but it appears the "Editors #1-3" section isn't always read thoroughly in that location anyway. It certainly belongs there, and maybe in the {{uw-AIV}} template also. Good work. :) Bubba hotep 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Neat idea, James! :) – riana_dzasta 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Activity seems to have slowed on changing the how-to. Any objections to adding it to the header? James086^Talk 13:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added it to the header so it can help people. Obviously it's still able to be changed, this is a wiki after all. James086^Talk 11:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering.

I am not sure, but I accidentally came across a vandal when I looked up Antithesis. It is an IP address, and I think it belongs to BELLCO. However, I am not sure whether it is a shared address. The IP is 68.212.55.125. I do not want to put in links, as I am not good at that. Anyway, I checked on the vandal's history, and it was his first vandalization. I left a warning to the user. However, today I found out that the user vandalized two more pages. Could you check wither this is a shared IP address so that it can be marked accordingly? The user inserted several random vulgar comments. Please reply, and I will keep a watch on this user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heero Kirashami (talk • contribs) 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

It seems to be registered to somewhere in Louisianna, I can't see anything that suggests shared IP, but then I'm not too hot at reading those IProute checker forms. Don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. SGGH 10:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Past final warning

Just wondering, is creating nonsense articles past a final vandalism warning enough to get an account blocked? I'm asking specifically about User:Exodustheory. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

yes. Borisblue 13:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for it, so yes :) SGGH 14:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

I tried to report user Nanndude as a vandal – no warnings but he has only two edits, both vandalising the same, semiprotected article. After writing that on the report page I could not post it (page has changed meantime warning) two times so I managed to post only the template {{vandal|Nanndude}} and the reasons are here. – Yarp ^Talk 18:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He ought not to be reported here until he has received a final warning and has subsequently vandalised again. A single warning about vandalism isn't serious enough for a block I'm afraid, and yes you might have had trouble posting, AIV was busy today... SGGH 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How strictly should a final warning be required?

I've been seeing quite a few people blocked, despite the fact that they didn't actually edit past their third warning. I'm not sure whether it's admins not checking the times, or actually seeing that and deciding to block anyway, but either way, there should be some clarification. -Amarkov moo! 00:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people blocked with a single warning...issued after the last incident of vandalism. If the vandalism is egregious (and by that, I mean serious vandalism and/or a spree of vandalism within minutes), I will block after a level 3 warning (rather than post a 4th and simply wait for him/her to do it again) but I always make sure it was issued before the most recent incidents. IrishGuy ^talk 00:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I did it once or twice today. That was in the case of one or two IP editors who were on a high-speed vandalism spree. They were reported to WP:AIV at their second or third warning but when I got there, they were on a roll. I immediately applied a block and left a message. Blatant vandal / warned three times / nothing but vandalism. The only reason they didn't get four warnings was because they weren't warned quick enough. - Alison^☺ 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (having said that, I am a newbie admin)

For me they must have had a 3rd or 4th level warning (one that mentions they will be blocked) and have vandalised after that was issued - at least 2 minutes after it so they have had a chance to see the warning. For IPs the vandalism must have occured within the last 30 minutes to an hour and the final warning must have been for the most recent vandalism spree not one a day ago. I never block a user as against an IP) indef straight off for vandalism, they always recieve a 24 hour block first to give them a chance, even if all their edits are vandalism - but I think I am in a minority for that one. Viridae^Talk 02:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked after a test3 for particularly malicious vandalism. I believe this is common practice among admins, as far as I've observed Borisblue 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I always check that they have edited past a recent final warning (not a final warning from january after which they were blocked for a day, or something). If there is no violated final warning or not even a final warning at all I have been leaving little comments on the AIv stating that there has been no FW administered, and I haven't blocked them. However on several occasions another admin has come along and blocked the user immediatly after I raised my concern, so I'm not sure what the policy is now.

NB: Final warning for me is anything that contains the text: "you may be blocked without further warning". SGGH 10:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What about a {{bv}} template? I was scolded for reporting a user who had recieved that instead of a {{uw-vandalism4}}, but as I understood, they are just as harsh as the vandalism4s. I haven't given one since; I just go to #4 (last warning) after #3. And what about giving a #4 to a user who has just been blocked (as opposed to starting the whole chain—#1, #2, #3, and then #4—again)? Thanks. · AO ^Talk 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that people are waaaay too trigger-happy with the bv template. It gets so overused that a lot of us don't think of it as a final warning anymore. That's probably what you came up against in the past. If there's a full series of warnings, I'd consider bv an acceptable last warning. But if it's given the first time a user ever vandalizes a page in some minor way, I don't consider it a "first and only warning" type of thing. Kafziel ^Talk 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. · AO ^Talk 11:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Warnings past final

Lately Ive been noticing more editors (especially bots but they probably can't tell) giving low level or even Another last/final warning after the user in question already has a very recent last warning. Doesn't last mean well, last? I use my Non-admin fwarn type template to say I am reporting the IP but I'd like to hear some of the reasons from other editors why they would give a vandal another chance after they've been given apparently enought to merrit the 1st final. (I saw one last week with 3 final warnings in row, isn't enough is enough). One thing I suppose is some editors don't know where to go to turn in vandals. Thoughts? --Xiahou 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be that they have been reported already but they keep vandalzing and rather than sit tight and wait for an admin, they keep posting final warnings. I sometimes post this if they keep vandalizing after final warnings:

Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please reconsider your behavior once the block expires.

-- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of them may have been blocked, then re-finaled, then blocked, then re-finaled, etc. Did you look at the block log? --tjstrf talk 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

oh yea I try to. The three final I mention had 3 finals in 10 minutes and still not blocked.--Xiahou 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To Hdt83 I do use that template I guess it seems odd I lately keep running into multiple last warnings seems the 2nd 'last' warning editor should be the one to turn it in with the template seen above added. --Xiahou 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What should we type to add that template? (it's "subst'd", so I can't tell). · AO ^Talk 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is it? Is it in the Template Warnings Page? I don't see it... - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'm chasing a vandal in real time, usually I won't bother retagging them, but sometimes (after I've notified here) I feel it might help the admin to see the history of warnings. But before I discovered Twinkle I would rarely report here as it's such an effort & I could never remember how. Canthusus 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cursing and general disrespect

Hello. I have come across an IP user who appears to respond to every instance of criticism or vandalism warnings with cursing and terrible disrespect. This is someone who clearly has no interest whatsoever in being civil or cooperative towards the goals of the 'pedia. It's not really the language, per se, which I take offense at - free speech, anti-censorship and all that - but the complete lack of respect or cooperative community attitude behind it. You can read his talk page here: User talk:68.10.35.153, and see clearly what I'm talking about; uncivil disrespectful responses to every single thing posted to him. I'm wondering what can/should be done. Thank you. LordAmeth 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We cant really deal with that here. It seems to me that wikipedia:dispute resolution should be followed. It perfectly possible to start a Wikipedia:RFC on an IP user Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. I'm just really not all that up on procedures and such. Sorry. LordAmeth 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'Persistent' Vandal?

I reported 209.188.162.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) here a few hours ago, but the request to block was shot down on the basis that the "209.188 not persistent... "

So what constitutes a persistent vandal? I'm confused. There hasn't been a single constructive edit from this IP address, and the user makes a few edits a week. I thought this was enough, but apparently it's not...--Rsl12 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That user has made 24 edits since September 2005. That's not persistant by any means. Persistant would be IP hopping, hard to block, never gives up vandal. This isn't really that far. --Deskana (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...You could also say that there have been 16 edits since January 2007. But in any case, what's the right course of action then? Continue putting warnings up on the talk page that say "This is your final warning, you will be blocked if you continue", but then no blocking actually occurs, as long as they only make a few edits a month?--Rsl12 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

16 edits since January still equates to about 5 a month, or something. That's not really persistant. If there's enough time between the final warning and the next instance of vandalism, it may well be someone else using the IP address that needs warning anew. --Deskana (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is timeline really a factor in persistence? Or, more to the point, is it a factor as its being implied here? Persistence means "existing or remaining in the same state for an indefinitely long time." The length of time between acts of vandalism actually means the vandal is MORE persistent rather than less because they have remained a vandal for so long a period. IMO, those vandals who do their thing only once a week shouldn't get a "break" because of the occasion of their actions. It is their consistency that should determine their status as persistent. Geeman 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I thought as well. If a user has done 24 edits over the period of 2 years, and not a single one of them is constructive, wouldn't that be a persistent (though infrequent) vandal?--Rsl12 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think someone who vandalizes 24 times and does nothing but vandalize should be recognized as a persistent vandal despite the length of time between "events." I suspect the problem with getting a block applied to such a vandal might have more to do with the requirement that a vandal be "active now" rather than that s/he is persistent, though that guideline seems to be rather vaguely applied as well. I've seen a couple of instances where the IP vandal report was removed because the vandal had stopped... for the moment. (Some admins remove a vandal report if the vandal hasn't done anything in the last 15-20 minutes or so, which strikes me as strange.) A glance at the address' activity, however, makes it pretty clear the vandal didn't really stop... s/he just went to bed. They'll vandalize again 20-30 hours later when they get home from work/school, eat a meal and sit down at the computer next. Or maybe the next day because they're busy an evening or two with band practice or whatever. Personally, I think the length of blocks should be scaled to the vandal's "period of persistence" if you will. That is, if they vandalize once a week they should be blocked (after the appropriate warnings) for a week in hopes they will actually discover they were blocked and actually stopping their next vandalism. The frequency should determine how often (not how long) the vandal gets blocked. Geeman 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Long term IP vandals

I understand that there's assumption that most IPs are dynamic and so shouldn't be blocled for a long time. But I was just removing vandalism and I came across one that seems pretty stable and is nothing but a source of vandalism. If an IP has a long history or vandalism why wouldn't it make sense to put a longer block on? Say a couple months, nothing permanent but long enough to maybe stop him next time? 67.63.207.98 is the IP I'm talking about. Another question is why can't I add to the reporting page, even if I did want to add someone I couldn't...anyway, questions from a newcomer. Nihilon 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of long-term vandals are schools, so warning and blocking them doesn't really accomplish what is intended because the students just hop on and hop off the computers at their leisure. Blocks usually last for a day or so, enough for the vandal to lose interest for that day. About your reporting problem, the page is semi-protected so that only users who have been registered for 4 days or more can edit it. Leebo ^T/C 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's understandable, I should been clearer. The IP I used as an example has done nothing but vandalism in it's whole edit history (going back to last fall). I understand there are proxys and so on out there but in this case for example a longer block wouldn't seem to prevent any good contributors. Nihilon 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that if this IS a school, there is a very good chance that sometime in the future a positive contributor could come from this IP. Still, even in such cases, a 6-month school block can be issued to minimize damage if particularly eggregious. Just some things to consider. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's usually easy to figure out whether an IP is registered to a school system using standard network utilities such as whois. Very often it's possible to locate the specific school. I've been tagging these with {{schoolIP|name and locale of the school}} as I run across them. There may be exceptions, such as tiny schools that dial in, but I suspect they are rare. Raymond Arritt 06:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Just wondering, any chance the final warning rule can be loosened today in the case of obvious, repeat vandals? Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 02:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but remember you can start with {{vandalism4im}} if the situation warrants. It's a blunt instrument and not to be applied without cause. Raymond Arritt 06:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can feel free to skip warnings, probably 2 and/or 3. 1-4 isn't a required pattern. -- The Hybrid 06:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually, use 4im (or BV) if it's particularly nasty, malicious, or obviously intentional vandalism. A lot of people really do stop after getting caught once or twice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How about just creating an April Fools Day template? 1-5. Says that wikipedia gets the joke and please stop. --Tbeatty 06:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

new users with obvious 'knowlegde' of vandalism

Does Wikipedia take any action of logging the IP-s used to create and contrib with for vandal users who have created accounts? As with Llamasoop858xsv, who arrived and went on a spree, obviously only interested in destroying as much as possible before getting blocked? (Thankfully, infinite for that one.) Are there any possibility to ask for some kind of IP-block or brand for such users, who obviously only arrives to destroy? It's something with the pattern... the speed of vandalism. My guess would be many of these are the same person arriving again and again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greswik (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Nevermind, I found this is taken care of with Wikipedia:Autoblock Greswik 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (generally used sparingly, but in certain situations, it can be quite useful). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Now" and "recent", what do they mean exactly?

The first point for editors states:

The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances.

What do "now" and "recent" mean in this context? Today? During the last week? Last month? -- akaihola 06:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not month or week. Not even today, actually. There has to be a string of vandalism sometime fairly recent, which is generally taken as sometime in the last few hours. Keep in mind, IPs can change, so admins don't block IPs which have been reported too far back - it could be someone else who's genuinely contributing now, with the same IP, so it wouldn't be fair to block the IP for someone's else vandalistic edits. Hope that helps xC | ☎ 07:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. If you want us to put a rule-of-thumb figure on it, I'd say that an act of vandalism should have taken place within the last hour and the final warning given within the last two hours. Of course, even that is enough time for the IP address to have changed, so the ideal is a last warning within half an hour and the act of vandalism within the last 5 to ten minutes.

A key thing is to make sure that vandalism occurred after the last warning; there have been quite a few reports posted here in the last few days where the last warning was either days ago (and therefore redundant), given with no further acts of vandalism having taken place, or the vandal not being warned at all. These situations are very frustrating for administrators! Waggers 08:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the "final warning within 2 hours ideally within the last 30mins" convention apply to persistant copyright violators/spammers? e.g. a recent person I was dealing with who was spamming pages with links to a personal website containing copied videos of copyrighted material or someone who insists in violating the Fair Use policy every couple of days? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When you think it needs significant explaining, or for the admin in question to look into a larger pattern of behavior, it's probably more complex than AIV is really intended for: in such cases, consider WP:ANI instead. Also, you should consider the type of violation: real vandalism is easy to evaluate, violating the fair use policy is much more tricky. AIV should be for easy-to-identify, urgent cases; avoid more complex ones here because they get in the way a bit. Mangojuice^talk 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what Mangojuice said. One thing to add is that there's a difference between IP users and actual accounts. It's easy enough to block a Wikipedia user account without disrupting other users, and often user accounts that are used for persistent vandalism are blocked indefinitely. Blocking an IP address indefinitely (or even for a long time) is never an option though as there's a risk that well-meaning users could be affected as described above. Waggers 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Username is a clear violation of the username policy

"Username is a clear violation of the username policy" - this reason is very commonly left as the only reason for reporting a newly registered user to AIV. Now while in most cases, with "billy sucks c*ck in hell" etc. yes it IS fairly clear, however there are many examples (such as Durovina, a recently reported name) where it isn't clear to the majority of the admins, and thus, as with the case of Durovina, a multitude of comments are left asking for more information.

Thus, in many cases, "Username is a clear violation of the username policy" isn't sufficient to get an admin started on a block. I move (if I may) to suggest that a point about being specific when reporting a username violation should be inserted into the green box somewhere around the point about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names? SGGH 13:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to make the must have a final warning note bigger! SGGH 13:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Such reports should be removed immediately. Anything that is not obvious vandalism has no place at AIV, and usernames that are not obviously grossly inappropriate just need to be ignored, and people who report nonobvious names all the time need to be told to stop. Kusma (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should make that note bigger then :D SGGH 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you notice a username that you're concerned might violate the policy, but isn't blatantly clear like the example above, you might want to consider using the template {{Usernameconcern}} and discussing it with the user in question first. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes usernames are obvious violations of the policy, but a little explanation is needed to understand it. For instance, User:John A. Robinson may not apprear to be an obvious violation, but it is, and anyone can see that once the reason is pointed out. Durovina, for instance, is (1) unobvious in terms of what the violation is (it's an impersonation of User:Durova), but if that was pointed out, the request would be easily understood, even if not everyone would agree it's a violation of the username policy. Mangojuice^talk 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That particular reason is the result of an one of WP:TWINKLE's automated features. I regularly throw what are clearly non-obvious "violations" out of here: indeeed plenty of those are later allowed at RFCN! I really wish people would stop abusing Twinkle in this manner and actually use their brains for a change. Ah well. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to widen the debate to the qualities of AIV and RFC/UN, I was just hoping we could make it a little clear that you ought to say why it "clearly" violates username. The reported obviously believes it does otherwise (we assume) we would have taken it to RFC/UN, he or she just needs to make it clearer to the rest of us before we can even decide if it ought to be in AIV. SGGH 14:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Frankly, it would be nice if that feature of Twinkle could be removed: we really don't need dozens of users patrolling new usernames, it creates an unfriendly culture. Mangojuice^talk 03:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked on the twinkle page to have this moved to rfcn, but they like it here, which is fine for blatant violations. I remove names from here frequenly that are not of the obvious sort, and have talk paged nominators that I've removed listing from repeatedly. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, finally someone decides to create a note about this! My main complain: sometimes people report English slang, and while I can understand Spanish ones, I need some background about why a name is offensive without having to search some online dictionary for the reason. -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• This happens exemplifies my concern with constant use of automated tools: namely, that you begin to not use processes that your automated tool can't do, even when those are what you should be doing. -Amarkov moo! 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I am perfectly happy with TW users reporting here, if they are properly explained. The auttomatic report reason for usernames is a very bad idea, I don't want to be questioning half of the reports here. I also agree with Mangojuice, having dozens of people patrolling the new users log is very unfriendly (in my opinion BITEy) and achives nothing because as someone pointed out in the RFCN mfd debate, most "offensive" accounts dont even edit anyway. Viridae^Talk 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not alone with these thoughts! Also, ReyBrujo brings up a good point, where a name might be offensive slang in one part of the world but the rest of us would have no idea. Just a more detailed comment on why it violates username would be nice. Moving all the non-blatantly-offensive reports to RFC/UN would be very nice and fixing the auto-report for TW (there are other issues with this, seen a few "using TW"s reporting without final warnings etc.) would be nice too! But mainly, I would like to see a note in the green box on AIV reminding reporters to clarify when reporting usernames, as I said above, "Username is a clear violation of the username policy" isn't good enough in some cases! SGGH 07:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "John A. Robinson" example went right over my head I'm afraid. But some of the names which I've seen reported as "clear violations" make me shake my head and feel glad I'm not an admin. There should be more good faith assumed. "Dick" for instance would get every patroller and his uncle into a tizzy, even though it is (or was) a moderately common shortening of "Richard". I'm afraid List of famous Dicks doesn't exist or I'd cite some references. If the name could have inoffensive reasons then surely it's best to AGF and let the user be. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I do try to do that, but not many people listen. It occured to me the other day, when I banned a username with the word gay in is "petesgay" or something, that what if it's just that he is actually gay, and I wanted to AGF and ask him to change it then but no one else seemed to have it, :D. I don't know what was wrong with John A Robinson either, we should encourage reporters to push more of these to RFC/U that what happens already, free up AIV for more anto-vandalism action.

Suffice to say, I'm still lobbying for a larger more specific notice in the green box! I might as well go ahead and do it myself if no one is going to object to it... SGGH 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just been moaned called up on for removing without blocking a username vio report that turned out to be offensive, in hindu yet with no explanation on the report other than "a clear violation of username policey". I'm not getting at the user who reported it, but it just isn't good enough but this is exactly what is the problem with the current system. We aren't mind readers! If there are no objects by tomorrow or this evening im going to add a clear notice on the main AIV page. SGGH 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC) edited by SGGH, I sounded a little overly harsh SGGH 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't someone flag up "Quid Pro Quo" as an offensive username yesterday...? Yes, I recall the reasons (and it was still silly IMHO). The "Petesgay" example is good, don't want to be getting accusations of homophobia from a genuine contributor who just happens to be proud of his sexuality. "Petesstraight" wouldn't get flagged. If someone is deliberately trying to offend with their username, how likely is it that they will contribute usefully? Not very, I'd say. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So is there a consensus for me to make the point on the AIV page that reporting a username vio on AIV must be a blatant violation that is clearly explained on the report summary, and "username is a clear violation" won't cut it with any other than the most blatant violations (such as "bella-sucks-c*ck" or something)? SGGH 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have carried out the change as discussed, there were no objections here and it's be bold time after all! It may need a slight reword if anyone thinks they can word it better, hope everyone's okay with my changes. SGGH 10:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest that there is something added to somehow draw attention to the new wording? I find it very probably nobody will read it. Some kind of icon or red text (for example)? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I added an information icon feel free to revert if you disagree. Viridae^Talk 11:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I altered the icon to one which would be more eye-catching against the green background. Please revert if is felt to be inappropriate though. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who was tentative when messing around with AIV. I think it looks good, we will have to see if it has any effect! SGGH 19:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody just please explain what the problem is with "John A. Robinson"? Thanks. --Geniac 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Something to do with Johnny the Vandal, I seem to remember. as discussed here --Bubba hotep 15:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Is there a way that the bot can report IPs with the IP Vandal template? I like the Whois feature.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for problems with report

When I reported a user's vandalism, several times someone else edited the page so I couldn't so when I finally got through. It left behind a lot of junk I wasn't aware was going to show up. For this I am very sorry. Xtreme racer 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem. =) -- Gogo Dodo 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Constant IP Vandal

Are IP's have permanently blocked? If an IP address has a history of nothing but vandalism, would admins block them indefinatly? TJ Spyke 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No. At least, not unless we know exactly who the IP address belongs to, in which case we might block the IP for a long time, possibly indefinitely, and use Template:Schoolblock. But in general, IPs are never blocked indefinitely. IP addresses change hands or are shared quite a lot, and we don't want to discourage genuine contributors. Furthermore, the vandal themselves may have a change of heart and decide to edit constructively (although I don't know any cases of that!) Waggers 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Benon started as a vandal and became a vandal-fighter. Kusma (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Block Request on 209.232.112.226

Constant vandlism on the Oakland, California page.--Fizbin 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be a shared IP address, and I've tagged it as such. Since they've stopped by now, and somebody else is making useful edits, today, it seems a little late to do anything about this one. You may want to report problems to the AIV main page (rather than this talk page, which doesn't get looked at as often). Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please monitor Noel Edmonds page

Socks of clear going keep adding the same image and same vandalism the latest to block is User:Cleargoing1point1 please monitor the page and block all new socks from this user.--Lucy-marie 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Page is now protected, but after page is unprotected, please report any socks to WP:AIV. I'll keep an eye on the article, too. Nishkid64 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

question on block notification templates

Okay, let's say I block a school, and I use {{schoolblock}} as my blocking reason. Now they're going to see that when they try to edit. Is it necessary to leave any block notification on the user talk page? Is it even helpful to put {{schoolblock}} or anything there, or is it just a waste of time? — coelacan — 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been told when they get the blocked message from MediaWiki:Blockedtext it actually shows a transclusion of {{schoolblock}} rather than just {{schoolblock}} as the block reason. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope so, although I just play it safe and do it twice. – Riana ^ऋ 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It definitely does show a transcluded template. I've tested it myself from a blocked IP. Now that the dropdown menus are there, there's no chance of mistyping it. If it's just a matter of them getting the message, then I guess I see no reason to leave one on the talk page as well. — coelacan — 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, good, I wasn't sure it worked, but now I'll save myself some time :) – Riana ^ऋ 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

block request

Hi, this is a user logged onto a computer that was recently informed would be blocked from editing following an abusive edit to a page on the Spanish Armada. I would like to inform the appropriate administrator that this computer is one in a school library which multiple users log onto daily. If you could, perhaps you could place a 'softened' block on this computer allowing only logged in and registered users to edit and blocking everyone else. Thank you, Treali Storm. (Internet alias, see http://journals.aol.com/trealistorm/traitor-starlesssky) I will probably be creating an account with wikipedia soon too under the username trealistorm most likely. 70.88.202.153 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Treali Storm

I have taken care of this for you. SGGH 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't list...

I tried to list IP 131.170.90.2 as a repeat offender, but wasn't allowed to, for some curious reason. Please check them out. Esseh 06:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Shared IP, blocked by Riana, looks like. Thanks for letting us know. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request for Nucomm International

Not sure if this is the proper approach, but it seemed like it. If you will visit the page, you will see the same IP that keeps vandalizing the page. It's people that work here, and it's frustrating to try to keep a neutral article when they label the CEO as a transvestite amongst other things. Is is possible to block the IP from editing without an established account? I'll take the hit from not being able to edit from work, but please do something if you can. Much appreciated. :) Fr0 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is not for reporting vandalism. If it can't be listed with a short description, try WP:AN. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help but the link brought me back here when I clicked assitance with vandalism/to report. Can someone help me here? Fr0 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop and content related to Bob Dylan

My apologies if this is the wrong location for this comment, or if this comment shouldn't be made in any event. The above user has been blocked for at least the second time for violating the three-revert rule on content related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to some form of Christianity. He has made statements such as "Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christ" as per his comment on his 04:02 25 April 2007 edit summary on Talk:Bob Dylan page. I believe that this problem might be solved if he were simply blocked from editing the two pages he most frequently reverts, Bob Dylan and List of converts to Christianity, and also possibly List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, which I have recently mistakenly called to his attention as also indicating Dylan is a Christian. His fundamental motivation in all of his edits on this subject seems to be ensure that, and I quote, "[h]is Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window", something no other editor is trying to bring about anyway. John Carter 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really the right place for this: WP:ANI is the closest I can think of. But just so you have an answer: There is no technical way to block a user only from specific pages; all blocks stop an editor from editing anything. The only thing we could to would be to protect the pages from editing completely, which we needless to say don't want to do here. A user can be banned (not blocked) from editing specific pages, but that generally requires the intervention of the arbitration committee. They are not likely to step in unless it's clear there's no other way to handle this. So in short, this solution isn't going to something we can enact right now. Heimstern Läufer 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, then for the unnecessary comment, and thank you for your quick response. John Carter 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets should be reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

"Suspected sock puppets should be reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets." how much is this adhered to? Is it that blatant sockpuppets go to AIV and only those where people aren't sure go to the sock puppet reporting page? Because there are a lot of sockpuppets being reported at AIV which seems to contradict the "Suspected sock puppets should be reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets." sentence. SGGH 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a guy creating a sock every m9inute. I would block any reports for oompapa asap, in case I miss them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Is oompapa a user? and if that is the case under what criteria is a suspected sockpuppet placed in wp:suspected sockpuppets and under what criteria is it placed in AIV? SGGH 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious cases involving some of our highly abusive and prolific puppeteers should probably go here -- I mean really obvious, though, like "on wheels!" moves, more of what we've been dealing with at Turkey, and such. The sort of thing that would be blocked out of hand and on sight. Anything less obvious should probably get some sort of discussion elsewhere, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luna Santin (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Twinkle sends SOCK reports here, if there is a lot of socks being reported here, that may be why. Personally, I think that is a good thing. Some sockpuppeteers are masters at doing hundreds of edits in a short amount of time. Wasting time making a case and getting someone to act on it at the suspect page is a waste of labor. SchmuckyTheCat 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I recently removed vandalism from article Nicole Oresme, pasted an appropriate template on User:70.228.239.86 and, seeing the long history of warnings, posted a note on this AIV board. Rather than getting a response, the complaint was removed because there had been no vandalism since my warning.[14] What did I do wrong? SteveMcCluskey 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's tricky. Generally speaking, it's best if vandalism is persistent, obvious, and ongoing before reporting here for a block. In this case, the IP address belongs to a school, and has given us nothing but trouble for some time. In the interest of saving our resources for more fruitful pursuits, I've given it a block. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

block request due to vandalism

Hello, this user is particularly problematic. He/she continues to edit out people's contributions and blank out entire sections, rearanging them at his/her will and being uncompromising. Yesterday the user blanked out many of the editor's collective contributions and I have been relentlessly trying to restore the article, but the user is relentless in his/her vandalism. We've had staff comment on the unreliability of the user's sources here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race/Archive_7#remove_OR

Edit:^^^This is not a part of the complaint

We have also warned the user well over 10 - 20 times to desist from his/her vandalism and blanking of material, and first to go over the points of contention but the user refuses. He/she has many similar complaints in his/her discussion box also, there is a history of this abusive behavior apparently. I am not the only editor who has warned him/her. Urthogie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - relentless vandalism despite numerous last warnings.Taharqa 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute, not vandalism. Heimstern Läufer 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^Well how do I get the user to stop blanking out sourced material as he/she has been doing for the past few weeks? He/she has no disputes, he/she simply blanks sourced material and has literally declared an "edit war" in their own words.. And how is this not vandalism? Are you sure that you clicked on his/her contributions and have followed the discussion along with the other complaints in the discussion and his/her personal box? I didn't mean to emphasize the link above as vandalism, that was a content dispute, I'm referring to the constant blanking and vandalism of sourced material and only used that to show how his replacement sources are usually agreed upon as unreliable, yet he/she blanks other people's contributions with out compromise and erases entries constantly, we need some type of intervention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#stop_reverting_the_entire_page_UrthogieTaharqa 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, if the user is constantly reverting, have a look at WP:3RR, which may apply. Another thing you might want to look at would be dispute resolution. Hope that's helpful in some way. Heimstern Läufer 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanx!Taharqa 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Username is a clear violation of the username policy

We are still getting these reports with summaries of "Username is a clear violation of the username policy" even when they are not. I have updated the green box again to make it as clear as I can. SGGH 13:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

there was a backlog of about 7 reports a few minutes ago, all but one were incorrectly reported some for FW's 6 days old! Others had no final warning, or were sockpuppetiers which aren't supposed to be reported here. Maybe we should make the green box flash and play music.... SGGH 10:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Updating the green box will do nothing to stop people from not reading the green box. :-( We should keep it very short and sweet otherwise nearmy every will simply ignore all of it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should destroy the username report functionality of Twinkle. :P That is the most obvious reason for this problem. They hit report username and Twinkle instantly adds that message to AIV. Funpika 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AzaToth could code it so that someone can be sent to WP:U with a special query string; for example, "&unamevio=Gracenotes", and then add a button to the top of the page requesting that the user check the policy and if a blatant vio, report to AIV. Gracenotes^T § 13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The script needs to be changed to require a reason to be entered manually or it will not post. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, maybe, instead of

case 'username':
if( TwinkleConfig.confirmUsernameToAIV && !confirm( "This will report the username to WP:AIV as blatantly inappropriate. Usernames should only be reported at AIV if they are clearly rude, inflammatory, unnecessarily long or confusing, too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, or are otherwise inappropriate. Borderline cases should be reported manually at WP:RFCN. Do you still want to report the username at AIV?" ) ) {
 return;
}
twinklearv.reason = 'Username is a clear violation of the [[WP:USERNAME|username policy]].';

remove the confirm variable, and use

case 'username':
twinklearv.reason = prompt('Please explain why the username is a blatant violation. Some reasons include: a rude, inflammatory, or unnecessarily long or confusing username; one that is too similar to that of an existing user or of an organization and website.', '');
if (!twinklearv.reason) return;

Of course, this is intended to be a bit more work for the submitter, and ARV is meant to be convenient, so not sure what to do there. Gracenotes^T § 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On long usernames

I am concerned about the standards being applied to the (vague) criteria of 'extremely lengthy' usernames per the username policy. Joseph The Greatest!(I share my name with no man) (talk · contribs) was just indefblocked by Physicq210 (talk · contribs) for this type of username violation, and I just think that, particularly when the editor in question has actually made good faith edits (or one, in this case), this part of the username policy should be applied with great caution. I think to the future, when we have tens of millions of registered editors; names of this length will not seem so long. I actually think usernames like this are preferable to names like user:Joseph Jones 22115, for instance. It makes it more difficult to distinguish them from, say, user:Joseph Jones 21115. Also, I don't want to seem like I'm being WP:POINTy or uncharitable, and I know that long signatures are not currently part of the username or any other policy (to my knowledge), but physicq210's signature is almost 150 characters. Anchoress 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; Joey could have just changed his raw sig to, say, "Joseph the Greatest". *sigh* We certainly do allow a bit of flamboyancy, or at least for those that have the chance to prove that they are valuable contributors. I can't say that there are many admins with a history of completely good username blocks, anyway... Although, I should indicate that this talk page is probably not the best place to bring this up. Gracenotes^T § 13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest a better way of handling very long names at WT:U. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A good faith request for a name change. SGGH ^speak! 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

@Gracenotes: Yeah, sorry... I really didn't know where to go with this. I was told by Physicq210 to go to the usernames discussion board, but there was a (later determined to be ambiguous) instruction at top not to use that space for discussion of blocked usernames. I then got a note from NewYorkBrad that it was a suitable place for my discussion, but by then I'd already posted it here. I really would like to discuss this issue further, perhaps not v/v this particular editor, but in general; what is the best place to do so? Anchoress 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot reports on specific categories

I have added a feature to the bot to make a note on reports of users who are in certain categories. Currently only users in Shared IP addresses or Shared IP addresses from educational institutions will be marked as such, but you can add new categories at User:HBC_AIV_helperbot/Special_IPs. The page is protected against abuse, but if you leave a suggestion on the talk page I will add it for you. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Per this edit, it looks like your bot is pushing the upper bounds of the edit summary length limit--VectorPotential^Talk 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• That is why I put the important info at the beginning. Interestingly if you look at a database dump the actual recorded edit summary is longer. I could add a routine to chop off the end and add a "...", but I don't see the problem with leaving it as it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued Vandalsim

User with IP User with IP 63.3.20.2 and 63.3.20.1 continually vandalises Corcoran he blanked the talk page on it because his information is useless and the sources are crap.He claims in his edit summary it was vandalsim (it obviously was not).And he reverted the article back to his view of corcoran.I RECEIVED A VANDAL WARNING from 63.3.20.2 and would like an explanation!!!.This guy has a lot of vandal warnings and still has not been blocked from editing!!!!!!!!I have asked other admins to resolve the situation.NOTHING has been done about it............... [[Odran Corcoran[[ 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV is for blocking currently active vandals. If they have stopped, then AIV is not the place, they will NOT be blocked. We do not punitivley block to prevent editing unless the damage is being done currently. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Per consensus at WT:AIV and WP:AN, I have created the above page, which incorporates both AIV username section and RFCN. If this is adopted, RFCN should be tagged as historical, and I have created User:Ryan Postlethwaite/UAA/to do with what needs to be done to various other templates and pages to incorporate the new system (there may be others so please add to the list) - regards. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So should we start removing non-super-blatant username vios from AIV and recommending them for AUU? SGGH ^speak! 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just yet! We need to change a few things before that. I think the best bet is to leave it on the relavent noticeboards for a few days and make sure there's no serious objections, then we can start booting usernames from AIV and telling people to go to WP:UAA. Ryan Postlethwaite

check. I just removed a non-obvious vio where Assume Good faith should have been used. I mentioned WP:UAA in my edit summary but told them to leave a talk page note first. I won't mention it again until you give a go ahead :) SGGH ^speak! 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'll leave it up for a couple of days, then I'll start changing things over using my to do list, then we'll be ready to rock and roll! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the WP:RFCN does get "booted", I think this is the next best option and maybe someone can create a bot for removing blocked usernames..--Cometstyles 18:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll just use the HBC AIV helper bot - it will easily work here as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have to change the bot's code so it can handle this new page? Funpika 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done, the addition of another page is as simple as adding the page name to a list, I will do it now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought of another change that would have to be made specifically for WP:UAA. Perhaps the bot should keep IP addresses off the page. I don't see any reason why an IP address would appear on that page. Funpika 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. SGGH ^speak! 08:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot serves several pages, I suppose I could add a "remove IP" parameter, but I think I am going to wait to see if reporting IPs in actually a problem. Besides, it may be hard for my bot to detect the difference between an IP and a user with an IP like name(which is a username violation). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seam like much of a problem if someone adds an IP, it can easily be removed manually but I really doubt an IP is going to be added. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/AIV/U

Per the deletion discussion on WP:RFCN, whats the thoughts on all usernames going to a new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against usernames, or WP:AIU for short. Any usernames that require discussion can go to WP:AN. I've created the proposed new mock up in my userpace (link above). Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. We get far too many here, many of which are not blatent at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we combine part of WP:AIV (username part) and WP:RFCN into this one board? Neutral opinion until question answered. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I am, there can be short discussion, similar to what sometimes occurs at AIV, but if the usernames not blatant, then ad many have said, does it really need to be blocked? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I see a lot of names reported that are far from blatant violations. It just clogs up the board. IrishGuy ^talk 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 21:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral on whether this is a good idea, but currently the directions to editors are unclear; that needs to be fixed. -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been griping for so long about this to the annoyance of other users, I have issues with the reporting of usernames at AIV that are anything other than blatantly blatantly offensive etc. My points were what resulted in the updated greenbox but I'm glad to see another user is thinking outside the box :) SGGH ^speak! 14:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, note that until UAA is officially approved, a lot of usernames are still going to be reported here, because not too many people check UAA right now. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting IPs? No point

Henceforth I will never report an IP on this page, nor will I ever add a warning to an IPs page. It's simply a waste of time. AFAICT IPs can vandalize with impunity, with reversion of their edits the only recourse. I'll devote my anti-vandalism time to vandalism by registered users, especially vandalism-only accounts, because that seems to be the only opportunity to hold editors accountable for their vandalism.--Curtis Clark 15:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to strongly disagree with this. First of all, as far as warning vandals goes, a huge amount of vandalism is from users who are just experimenting. A nice little message will stop most of these. And as far s AIV reports go, if you do not block a an IP whhich consistently vandalizes then there will be no way to stop it. -Mschel 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Properly warned IP vandals are blocked, if your reports are not getting blocked it may be due to you not ensuring the prerequisite warnings have been issued. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but IP vandals are blocked when it is deemed appropriate (infact I came here after returning to AIV from blocking an IP vandal). Please do not cut off your nose to spite your face. --Deskana (AFK 47) 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, many people posting to AIV assume, regardless of the warnings on top of the page, that a report there equals an instant and lasting block on the reportee. Many users, including some established ones, assume that their word is good enough for everyone and sysops won't check or, if they do check, will come to the same conclusions they have. This isn't the case. The main criterion for becoming a sysop is experience; and experience means most sysops are likely to double check an entry, evaluate the number of warnings against the seriousness of the vandalism against the dynanism of the IP address against the time the vandalism occurred. Each of these produces a diminishing likelihood of a blocking taking place. Many posters here, of course, would be happy for sysops to block hours or days after vandalism has taken place - especially if the vandal hit "their" article - but we don't block to punish, we block to prevent further damage. I can understand the annoyance people will feel from not having their report acted upon (I remember, back in 2004, being annoyed myself) but people really do need to cut sysops some slack and WP:AGF that a decision they don't agree with may have been made by someone with more experience who has done more research than they have. ❛ʀϵɒv϶ʁƨ❜ 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me also add my encouragement. Please DO continue to report IP vandalism. Just keep in mind that IP vandals are less likely to be blocked if they haven't vandalized a lot recently, because IP addresses don't imply that all the edits are done by a single user. Think of the "warning count" resetting at the most every couple of days. I have blocked lots and lots of IP addresses after reports to AIV. In particular, I feel like the times I have blocked School IP addresses have been very beneficial -- those IPs generate a lot of vandalism, and I typically block them for at least a month, 6 months if there's been an ongoing problem, and in a couple of recent cases, even longer. Mangojuice^talk 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning IPs actually does serve no point, since we have Bug 9213. Therefore, the only way to let an IP know he/she needs to stop is to block them. Disregarding that though, warnings are very important. Prodego ^talk 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, until the bug with the messages bar is fixed, IP addresses are rarely getting the warnings posted so blocking is the only way for now. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)