Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia Is Far Too Soft On Vandals 2

I'd like to note my support of Maikel's comment above in the section Wikipedia Is Far Too Soft On Vandals. Too many admins (perhaps encouraged by AGF or other policies I haven't seen yet) insist upon there being a final warning immediately prior to a block recommendation. A final warning added just a day or 2 prior to vandalism doesn't seem to count - they need to be "final warned" again. This makes the warning process look entirely impotent. A vandal can stop by on a daily basis, screw up a few articles in a row (making us vandal fighters chase them down), and never be blocked simply because they wait until the next day to vandalize -- all the while 1 or more messages sit on their Talk page stating: "'you will be blocked if you vandalize again." Ridiculous! I can't be the only editor here frustrated by this. Wikipedia is worried about losing useful edits by blocking too agressively - how about the vandal fighters who throw in the towel in frustration? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the admins referred to above and I absolutely defend this policy. Most of the vandals listed here are IP addresses and there simply is no way to be certain that the same user is behind the same IP address when used more than a few hours apart, even discounting the AOL problem. Frankly, reverting vandalism is not normally difficult, but the effect of putting off a new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia and finds themselves blocked very soon after first using the site may be permanent. Perhaps you should read WP:BITE which is a very important policy.

I see too many reports here which list vandalism which is hours or days old, and where the user has not been warned. Blocks on Wikipedia are never punitive. David | Talk 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand there could be new users unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but many times the problem is obvious vandalism. Day after day a user or users from an anonymous IP add curse words, "Joe shmoe was here", "I love Daisy", etc. Why shouldn't that call for an immediate block (at the very least a short one) if there is already a final warning on the Talk page? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted to agree that Wikipedia often does seem too soft on vandals. The problem of innocent users receiving warnings could be solved if shared IPs were prevented from editing before registering accounts. I know that many have said that this is against the concept of Wikipedia, but I disagree, as Wikipedia does desire users and their contributions to be identified with one another. That is the reason why "public accounts" are unacceptable.--Conrad Devonshire 21:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"A vandal can stop by on a daily basis, screw up a few articles in a row (making us vandal fighters chase them down), and never be blocked simply because they wait until the next day to vandalize" So pretty much the same as being blocked for 24 hours. I agree with David, unless we are confident that the IP is static (or semi static) we need to make sure people are adequately warned. It takes 2 seconds to add a {{bv{{ or {{test3}} message, if they take the hint and stop objective achieved. --pgk^(talk) 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the vandalism is of exactly the same type as earlier, then note it in the report and the admin might take that into consideration. Admins watching this page can't be expected to go throuhg ever previous dif from an IP but if you tell them you know its a returning vandal due to identical vandal forms, they should respond as if all the previous warnings went to that individual. If they don't do that, they are being too soft. But treating the vandal as new without any strong reason to suspect otherwise is reasonable. JoshuaZ 21:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) Sigh. We are writing an encyclopedia here - not providing a place for people to read an encyclopedia(although that's a nice side benefit); obvious vandalism can and is easily corrected; actual contributions (be they spelling corrections, improvements in the phrasing of sentences, addition of facts, addition of citations, corrections of factual errors, etc.) that we lose because the person doesn't want to make an account at a website they don't expect to ever return to (although many people find they enjoy making edits, and do return), or worse, find that they can't make their contribution because someone else from their IP address was blocked for vandalizing - those losses are not correctable, either easily or quickly. Those losses are permanenent. If you think vandel fighting(i.e. making sure that innocent readers don't see stupid vandalism) takes precedence over actually improving the content you are mistaken. Please get the most recent dump, correct the obivious vandalism in that, and post it on the web as a static copy. That's how to get a website without vandalism. Wikipedia isn't it, and can and will never be it. The work of reverting vandalism, and blocking currently vandalising IP addresses is good and useful work; but never forget that it is in the service of those who actually improve the content. That's our most important work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, JesseW, but there is also the school of thought that 10 incidents of vandalism are not worth 1 constructive edit. There are those among us (not necessarily me, I'd need to think about it) who believe that the quality of Wikipedia is degrading due to vandalism and poorly written articles. The question here is-- at what point do we block a vandal? If we're certain it's a static IP, and that IP has done nothing but vandalise 15 times, why not block that vandal for a spell? I am not trying to argue with you here, and I agree that actually writing the encyclopedia takes precedence over vandal fighting, but without the vandal fighting, the encyclopedia would quickly deteriorate into a curse-laden wasteland. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel your pain, AbsolutDan. I personally think that if it's obvious that it's the same vandal (displayed by adding the same words, or vandalizing the same articles, AND it's a static IP), then a block would be appropriate. I'd probably use the 31 hr block too, so the vandal can't come back at the same time the next day. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 22:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A final warning should almost always be issued, because in most cases that stops the vandal. That's all we want. Anyone who isn't content with vandals merely slinking away, and must see the big octagon X sign crash down on the heads of the evildoers, is on the wrong website. Something Awful and Free Republic have a more 'fun' approach to those who 'break the rules' if that's what you're looking for. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly... this is, and must remain "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Obviously people that vandalise past last warnings must be blocked to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, but that is essentially how it must remain- people must be free to edit it. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Something that is often cited as a reason for reluctance to block is WP:BITE. However I think applying that policy to obvious vandals is ill judged (if it was indeed ever intended to be applied to them). Arniep 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, telling someone not to bite newcomers if they are actively biting you is a bad idea. WP:IAR perhaps? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking a student newcomer as a 'repeat vandal' due to misunderstanding the nature of IP addresses is WP:BITEing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my thoughts are being misinterpreted (or perhaps I was unclear). I believe Wikipedia should be editable by everyone. I believe vandals should get a "final warning" before they vandalize. I don't believe in long-term (1 week +) blocks for IPs that have only vandalized a bit. The scenario that I find irritating is this:

Vandal has final warning (test4) on page from May 1. Vandal vandalizes on May 2. Vandal "final warned" again. Vandal vandalizes again. Vandal reported. But by this time, vandal has had his/her fun for the day, doesn't attempt to vandalize again. Next day, rinse & repeat.

What I do believe should happen is something like this:

Vandal has final warning (test4) on page from May 1. Vandal vandalizes on May 2. Vandal reported. Vandal blocked (say 31 hours per comment above) without the need for another final warning.

Is this so unreasonable - assuming that a quick look at the User's/IP's history shows an obvious pattern of abuse with no redeeming edits? To be able to take a look at an IP and say "hey, there's nothing coming from this school/library/etc but vandalism, let's apply a reasonable block"? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well looking at the IP contribs doesn't tell you that, what about named users who also share the IP? But agian if they leave for a day or two it's the same effect as the block anyway. --pgk^(talk) 23:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen this on WP:BITE "Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, Internet troll, a vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is uplifted, and you further our project.". I'm not saying you should be rude to a vandal but I think this wording is a little over the top. Arniep 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, pgk. I suppose there's no way for an admin to look up whether a particular IP has had any logged-in users on it? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser will do that; however, there is a very, very short list of people with CheckUser access, probably for good reasons, and this is not one of the things that they will employ CheckUser for. --Nlu (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The big problem is obviously with IP addresses shared by many users, most of them quite OK, but a minority vandals, who can use up valuable editorial time with editors, as has been noted above, having to go on a constant chase. I'm amazed at the amount of vandalism just on my watchlist of 400 articles, and also amazed and somewhat frustrated to come across a talk page which is plastered with warnings and still no block, because it's a day or a week in between vandal edits. The obvious answer for shared IP addresses is some way of targeting individual vandals, and I think it is entirely reasonable with such addresses to require some form of individual identification - after all, if you have a unique IP, then you automatically have an individual identification. There's a discussion relevant to this: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal. It seems a very sensible idea to me. Tyrenius 01:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:147.72.67.23

Givent the discussion above I may be wasting my time trying to help here, but could someone please block the above account? He was warned about vandalism last year, but has been back making some very obvious vandalistic edits, including an entirely fictious edit to 2006 in golf, which I edit regularly. If he isn't blocked, I will find it hard to see why I should bother to help out the admins in future. I agree with the complaints above that Wikipedia is far too soft, so admins should not be surprised if a lot of good editors can't be bothered to try to contribute to controlling it. INO the idea that we are here to write an encyclopedia as a distinct activity from providing a place for people to read an encyclopedia is a comical false distinction. Osomec 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lack of warning

It now seems to me that a fair chunk of people do not understand this page. After people making something like 4 vandalism edits, they add them onto this page. This in itself is not a problem, but frequently, there is nothing other than a {{test}} on their page, not even a test2 or test3 or test4... Can we change the wording of the page to make it clear that vandals to need to be warned? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Snoutwood (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean change the text in the green box to tell people they really need to warn people before adding them. I'm not inclined to go fiddling around with high-view pages like this without some community support... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What sort of changes are you thinking of? Snoutwood (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Something like...

This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with persistent vandals. Editors: Before listing a vandal here make sure that: The vandal has been warned with the appropriate warning templates. If you can't justify leaving these messages on a user's talk page, it likely isn't vandalism. Users must be appropriately warned using {{test3}} or preferably {{test4}} before being listed on this page. Users without appropriate warnings will not be blocked. The vandal vandalized within the last few hours and after the final warning. If so add the IP or user to the bottom of this page in the following format (remember to replace spaces with underscores): {{vandal|username_or_ip}} optional brief reason for listing (keep it short) -- ~~~~

Something like that. I added text onto the end of the first bullet point. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. AFAIC, feel free to add it in whenever. Snoutwood (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll leave adding it for a while... I want to see if anyone objects. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Snoutwood (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add this ASAP. As you may have noticed, I had to remove four names earlier today because they were only warned {{test1}} or not at all. This would make the work of admins a lot easier! — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a new bullet point in containing what I said above. If anyone objects, feel free to revert it and discuss it here. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me - as a relatively new Wikipedian, but one who has reported vandalism several times - what the criteria for reporting here actually are! You require a final warning & recent vandalism - fine? But does the final warning have to be VERY recent. E.g. final warning & temporarily blocked a week ago, but now several more acts of vandalism. The user's been warned, been blocked, waited for the block to expire, then started vandalising again. Surely (s)he should be blocked without further warning - it's intentional vandalism.

I see there's much discussion about being too soft on vandals, and about users spotting vandalism not giving warnings but just reporting then here. PLEASE MAKE CLEAR TO THE UNINITIATED WHAT YOU WANT! But also, I have to say that if I see a lot of vandalism and little effective action taken, I tend to think "Why bother reporting it?" TrevorD 13:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? WP:VAN seems reasonably complete to me, although like everything else I suppose it could always be improved. I do agree that we should be MUCH more harsh on cases of clear-cut multiple vandalism however. Badgerpatrol 13:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm missing it, but I've had another read through WP:VAN and cannot find any mention of what is required when a user has been warned, been blocked, and then started vandalism again (within a matter of days or weeks). I would have thought that a further warning is useless / pointless and that (s)he should be blocked again without further warning. But one interpretation of WP:VAN is that further warnings are needed before another block; and also I see admins complaining here about users posting messages here without warning the offender first. Earlier today, I found someone who last vandalised on 2 May, was blocked, then did 5 vandalisms today (3 separate and repeatedly on the same article); I thought no further warning necesary so immediately reported it here; and the admin just put on yet another final warning. TrevorD 14:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point. As I suggest above, recidivist vandals (from a non-shared IP) ought to be blocked (for a long time) on the first re-occurrence. At the moment, that is not always the case. Badgerpatrol 16:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

IPs MUST have a recent and complete set of warnings, as the IP could very possibly be dynamic and now belong to a different user. Registered users must simply have a complete set of warnings, with the latest one or two being fairly recent. That's my opinion, anyways. Snoutwood (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Blatant vandal account

This user Special:Contributions/Havendutch vandalised after the blatant vandal warning template was added. I really cannot see any sensible reason why we should show mercy in cases such as this. Arniep 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't. They are indefblocked by me. --Syrthiss 12:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, there seems to be uncertainty amongst others about this issue as User:JzG removed this user when I placed them on the main AIV page. I think we need to possibly change the wording of the main page so that it says it is OK to report people on this page if there has been vandalism shortly after a blatant vandal template has been added. Arniep 13:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, its usually been up to the discretion of the admins viewing this page. Some would think a {{bv}} is out of place when its the first warning someone has been given. I think from that user's first edit it was all downhill, so it was reasonable to me. --Syrthiss 13:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well they had already vandalized 6 articles in quick succession so I thought bv would be OK in a case like that. Arniep 13:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, what if this user decides to completely change his ways and apologizes to the community about his actions in the future? Is there a slight chance for him to be unblocked? Or is the real nature of an indefinite block lasting forever without any possibility of allowing this user to return back to Wikipedia BUT with having an experienced admin supervising his edits? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

They can always make a new account if they feel like making constructive edits. Then, if they behave well they won't get banned. Arniep 16:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Received is spelled wrong

On the text in the green box, received is spelled "recieved"; could someone edit the appropriate (what?) template?

Atlant 14:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. (The page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/header). Femto 14:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Atlant 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

65.163.63.99

Has been repeatedly warned up to test4, and anyway vandalised the Copernicus page [1] today. Is there any useful edit from this IP? I doubt it. Please block this IP. --Matthead 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Capitol of Greece is Manama?!

According to the current version [2], it is. Obviously undetected, too many IP vandals busy there. Please sprotect Greece! --Matthead 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hate speech

User:67.52.164.132 has made multiple vandal edits today. All of these contain various references that are considered hate speech by myself and many others.

This user (and others with this practice) should be suspended immediately. If there is a concern about blocking a multiple user IP, then direct any attempt by this IP to connect to Wikipedia to the page that specifies the objectional postings. And let them sort out the problems on their end and then ask to be reinstated. -- Ryanjo 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is a vandal, and yes, I will block him if he coninues. However, please post further notices of this type on the main page rather than here, in the talk. Snoutwood (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reporting the guy here; I've already done the vandal tag tap dance. I am opening discussion that some types of vandalism are neither experimenting nor misplaced humor. Is a gay-minority-women-antisemite-etc basher treated the same as a vandal who (for example) puts his name in the list of US Presidents? -- Ryanjo 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No recent warning, WHO CARES?

131.109.225.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), repeat vandal of banned user vandalizing the same article with the same text. semi-static IP. suggest banning for a week or two. SchmuckyTheCat 14:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This request was removed with an edit summary "no recent warnings". I posted that because this is a BANNED USER coming back from a semi-static IP. They DO NOT NEED WARNINGS. This user knows EXACTLY what they're doing and they've been doing it for months on end. Why should any non-admin even bother to care anymore if their reports just get removed? SchmuckyTheCat 15:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make it clearer by adding "banned user coming back from semi-static IP". Admins are not infallible. Please calm down. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

213.249.155.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is a user who seems to be collecting warnings- they've got about 20 on their page, and a second page's worth has been deleted! The guy seems to only vandalize pages with random phrases, insults of people (he) apparently knows, or obscenitites. What's the point of giving warning after warning when morons just ignore them? Some sort of permanent banning is very badly needed, rather than just comments which get lost in a page like this. CFLeon 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see by the IP's talk page, this is a shared IP. Blocks need to be relatively short in such cases to avoid too much collateral damage to good editors. Some shared IPs, for example, are shared by Wikipedia administrators. RadioKirk talk to me 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that matter? Please note this whole issue needs discussion. As with any "punishment" (or "correction"), there are at least two separate issues with blocking: one is (warning/teaching), and the other is protection of the community. They aren't the same thing. The first is what we do to teach a cat not to scratch the sofa (use a squirtgun). The second is what we do when we have a matter of public health (a sewage system is polluting a river, or a person needs to be quarantined).

Note that in neither case did I mention retribution-- it's too controversial. But let's just keep it to the above two issues.

In the case of warning, many IPvandals don't read their own "talk pages". So the block, when it finally occurs, IS the warning. That's the squirtgun. That gets the vandal's attention, and should. Thus, I propose that the ideal length of a block should be several times the mean interval between the vandal's last 5 acts of vandalism. That keeps it simple to esimate, and it makes it more likely that the vandal will attempt to vandalize while the block is in place, and thus find that he's been "corrected".

As for the issue of a polluting "communal IP" (say a high school library netlinked computer), that's the same problem of the commons with any community-done damage. You can't spend too much time worrying about assigning personal responsibility, because damage is being done and THAT is what needs fixing primarily. If you have (for example) pollution in your river from an industry, you turn a valve on them until they fix the problem. It might be unfair to the industry because not every single person they employ is equally personally responsible for the problem. In fact, only a few people might be. But it would even MORE unfair to the people downstream to keep closing the valve for a minute or two a day, with a weak warning each time. Unfairness is going to happen no matter what you do. But seek to minimize it. Blocked IPs can solve their own problems with their bad users, and will.Sbharris 00:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal removed warning from their own page

User:Konob6, who's only "contribution" ever was blanking Ultrix, removed my warnings from his/her talk page twice, arguing that "vandelism is ok". Is this considered repeated vandalism? Qwertyus 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a blatant act of defiance, and in my dealings with vandalism I have always treated it as vandalism with no problem. Do what you need to : ) ---Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

IP Vandal Template

Does it look like the {{IPvandal}} template is going to be a lasting change? I just finished patching some problems with WP:VandalProof's Report to AIV function, and I'm wondering if I should incorporate the IPVandal template as well. I don't want to rework these routines and then have the IPVandal template deprecated the next week, but if it's going to become the new standard, I'd be glad to migrate it. Thoughts? AmiDaniel (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tempting, so very tempting

It's too bad I didn't see this one go by my screen! Bucketsofg✐ 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Adolphus79

LOL how did I get reported? - Adolphus79 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Where to report simple vandalism?

It seems like the various places (ANI, here etc) make a big effort to discourage you reporting vandalism, but don't tell you where you can report it if you haven't warned them etc.

In this simple case, user Deeprub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding spam to various pages. Probably with a couple of warnings he will stop, but someone still needs to clean it up. Where do I go to report vandalism/spam like that? Stevage 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, even before I was an admin I'd do the warnings myself with {{spam1}} etc and do the reverts myself. Depending on how virulent the spam is, you can report them to aiv or ani for an admin to use their rollback...just state clearly that you felt it was an odd case that needed quick attention. Syrthiss 14:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a quick rollback function to revert thio sort of thing, you should get the Godmode-light user script, which you can find here.--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally lost

I need help reporting vandalism. I have just joined in an attempt to edit a vandalized page, and I discovered you can report the vandalism. However, it's really not clear to me how I go about assigning the "test2" or anything else to a specific poster. I clicked on the talk page, but nothing's there. I'm wondering if it's just easier to ignore it.

If you look at the top of the page, there should be a 'history' tab. That lists every edit done to that page. You can use the checkboxes on the left side of the list to create a differences page, where the previous version appears on the left and the changed version appears on the right side... Using that you can see who did the vandalism. You can then go to their talk page and warn them with test's, based on whats there already (ie if there's a recent test2, use test3... if there's nothing recent, you can start over at test1). If you mention the page here someone else can go take a look too. Syrthiss 20:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I already went through the histories/differences back to the beginning. Someone had edited some of what he said but obviously didn't recognize the remaining problems. From the differences pages, I clicked on his talk page, but I get the message "Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact name." When I clicked the link to verify that the user account exists, I get a page full of characters that make no sense to me. It seemed like every step led to another step, and I didn't seem to be getting anywhere.

I didn't post the page here because I thought that was against the rules. It is West Feliciana Parish. Thanks for any additional help you can provide.CUL8R 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I went and looked at that page West Feliciana Parish (which is actually a redirect to another article) and didn't see any edits recently that looked like vandalism. :/ Syrthiss 21:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

System not fast enough at times

The Administrator intervention against vandalism is great, but sometimes it just isn't fast enough. I've seen many examples where {{test4}} just pile on top of each other, and the vandal is still continuing. Is there any way to make it more efficient that what it's at now?—G.He 01:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit? Likely the fastest way to get someone's attention is IRC. If you don't want to use IRC, another high probability method would be to look at Special:Recentchanges and leave a message on the talk page of an admin who has recently done something, like deleted a page, protected a page, or reverted a change (although not everyone using the Reverted edits by ... edit summary are admins). Another way to find a currently active admin is from the block log. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are probably some admins who one knows who edit many of the same articles. Just keep track of who they are and a glance at one's watchlist will often turn up an admin that you can put a message on their talk page. JoshuaZ 04:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Warnings Useless

To repeat what several of the people above have said: WARNINGS ARE ONLY GOOD IF THE USER READS THEIR TALK PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! Very few of the INTENTIONAL vandals read their talk pages and therefore BLOCKING IS THEIR WARNING!!! The two hour time limit is absolutely moronic and has no point in the real world. Just going to bed overnight would invalidate any offences!!!! Reading the above comments, this is a major problem and not much is being done to solve the problem. There have been several instances of Wikipedia's lax control made public recently, do we WANT more? This really needs to discussed in depth someplace where it's not going to get lost in 200 other postings about other topics or archived next week because of length. I feel that there needs to be:

• a distinction made between false information (putting a new name in the list of presidents, to use the above example) and obscenities or racism
• change the timelimit to at least 24 hours
• limit on number of warnings before blocking; I've seen many vandals with dozens of warnings and no blocks
• limits to number of blocks. I've seen vandals with a dozen or more blocks in only a month or two of use. And an increasing time span for blocking
• real teeth in the banning policy, even to the extent of notification of potential hate crimes in multi-user IPs (which are usually public-funded)

May I point out that a lot of these vandals are engaged in inserting (probably other) people's names in articles and if someone sees that their name is in something like "Mary Xxx is a whore" (to invent an example) Wikipedia or the IP provider may be open to a suit for LIBEL? Most of the worst of the vandals are doing their dirty work in a short time, like a day or two's lunch break. Perhaps a good antidote for this sort is requiring a 24 hour wait after first registering before editing? But please don't keep coming up with excuses NOT to even whack the little delinquents' knuckles. It just makes any rules impotent without some sort of accountability. CFLeon 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I 100% agree with CFLeon. I have been reprimanded by admins many times for trying to do the right thing in reporting blatanta and persistent vandals, but because they haven't had "sufficient warnings", my attempt to block has been quashed. The system needs to be overhauled so that established users get the benefit of the doubt over a blatant anonymous vandal. Just my 2 cents.--Zpb52 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia works, in part, by not biting the newbies. We err on the side of caution with new users for a reason; to encourage people to contribute positively. I've seen several users start out as vandals only to become solid contributors over time. The vast, vast majority of vandalism is caught within 5 minutes. I've seen too many admins that knee-jerk block people simply because a user does one or two bad things. That's not a persistent vandal. Which would you rather do, block someone only to have them come back when the block expires or encourage them to become a positive contributor? The block route is the easy way out, but it's by far the least productive. --Durin 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken, but what about the ones who persistently and blatantly vandalize? --Zpb52 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• First vandalization, {{test1}}. Second, {{test2}}. Third, {{test3}}. Fourth, {{test4}}. Fifth, block. It's important to give them a chance. The first vandalization by many people is really a test, "Can I really edit this thing right now???". I see a number of these where people make a slight change, then change it right back...just to see if they could do it. Thus, test1 works. Test2 let's them know it's not a good idea to do that, and that it is vandalism. Test3 warns them they could be blocked, and test4 gives them a final warning. It's a good system, and it works. For my part, when I issue a test2, 3, or 4 I temporarily track the editor to see if they continue vandalizing. Many times, they just stop after test2 or test3 is applied. --Durin 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Apples there and oranges here. Why is it that EVERYTIME a harsher penality for REPEAT, PERSISTANT vandals is mentioned, the only response is either "the first (second, third, etc.) is a freebee" or "we must be nice to the newbies"? THAT'S NOT THE POINT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Now is it clear?) I don't mind a new member testing the system; certainly some of my first edits (and even the ones I do now) may have been interpreted as vandalism by the person whose article I changed. That's how newbies learn and I have no basic problem with that. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE PERSISTANT, REPEAT VANDAL WITH MULTIPLE WARNINGS AND/OR BLOCKS. The ones who DON'T CARE about your generousity. What we are talking about are the vandals WHO REGULARLY delete articles, put in obscenities, racist remarks, or nonsense; NOT NEW USERS OR ONE-SHOTS!!!!!!!!! An important point in distingushing the difference is the time aspect: Has the user been registered for more than a couple of days? Have they edited before? ARE THERE A DOZEN OR MORE WARNINGS OR BLOCKS? This is the problem I'm talking about. (Sorry to shout, but it's the only way I can emphasize, underscoring not being allowed. If you still consider it shouting, then someone needs to turn their hearing aid on so they can hear what is actually said, then people wouldn't HAVE to shout.) CFLeon 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• When you're done yelling :), have a look below where I mentioned the {{repeat vandal}} template. There's no point in yelling here. --Durin 00:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Durin, do you bother to READ entirely the posts you respond to? I explained (and APOLOGIZED) for my "yelling" in my post (How ELSE can I emphasize since underscoring is not allowed????). "Yelling" or "Shouting" is DEFINED as "using capitalization AT LENGTH for no reason"; and NOT as capitalizing a word or short phrase for stressing purposes. (But hey, "if you don't like the message, complaint about the messenger's accent or the spelling.") And your earlier responses in this thread chose to ignore anything I actually said, rather making a decision to treat my topic as being a complaint against new people testing the system when it was most definately not! CFLeon 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've already given you an answer. Further explanation of why you feel it necessary to yell at me is rather unhelpful. I'm sorry you are apparently very, very disappointed with the utility of the {{repeat vandal}} tag. However, that is the proper way to handle these matters. For registered users, increasingly longer blocks is the norm. In the case of accounts created simply to vandalize, some admins feel it appropriate to block them indefinitely. I do not, preferring instead to have increasingly longer blocks. Again, see my comments above as to why. --Durin 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the person that shouts so much. A schoolkid might wake up to warnings. On the other hand one wouldn't predict a spammer to listen, those aren't here for fun, merely to spam. Dr Zak 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I use test - test2 - test3 - test4 for testing. Testing is easy to tell apart from real vandalism. Any vandalism warrant a test2 - test3 - test4 . Serious vandalisms, like those with major cursings, sexual slurs, or any form of highly offensive terms, gets blatantvandal - test4. Blanking goes test2a - test3a - test4a. There is no set system in warnings, and you just have to use your own judgments in giving various tests. Olorin28 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

CFLeon. Calm down. Learn Wikimarkup(like this, or even this, not to mention things like this, or tricks like this). Hang around the community for a while. Get a longer baseline. As for the specifics of your proposals:

• "a distinction made between false information (putting a new name in the list of presidents, to use the above example) and obscenities or racism" - A distinction is made. Please be more specific about where you are seeing no such distinction being made.
• "change the timelimit to at least 24 hours" - What "timelimit" are you referring to? If you are referring to the guideline that an IP needs to have vandalised recently or it will be assumed that the person who vandalised no longer has that IP, and so a block of that IP would not do anything to stop the vandalism... that's simply a fact of how the Internet works. IPs change, often quite quickly. If you are referring to some other "timelimit", please clarify.
• "limit on number of warnings before blocking; I've seen many vandals with dozens of warnings and no blocks" - If these were IP addresses, unless the warnings were all right at the same time, the vandalism was probably done by different people using the IP. If I remember correctly, someone is running a bot to blank out of date warnings on IP pages; I don't remember the name of the bot. If these were user accounts, were all the edits from that account vandalism? If so, after 20 or so edits, or 1 month or so, the account will often be perma-blocked if you request it at WP:AN/I. Of course, you do need to realize that such a perma-block will simply mean the person doing the vandalism will simply get another account. Also, please clarify what you mean by a "limit" - as I explained above, there are different types of blocks (IPs, logged in accounts, limited duration blocks, perma-blocks, and auto-blocks); which ones were you talking about?
• "limits to number of blocks. I've seen vandals with a dozen or more blocks in only a month or two of use. And an increasing time span for blocking" - Again, were these IPs or logged in accounts? It is really important to recognize that we cannot prevent someone from editing Wikipedia, we can merely make it clear that we don't want them to, and make it more difficult to do so(requiring them to switch IP addresses, quickly make new logged in accounts, wait between making the accounts and vandalising, etc.) However, as I said above, it is generally accepted to perma-block logged in accounts used only for vandalism; the duration of IP blocks is a more complicated question - I'll explain it further if you are interested. As for the increasing duration, that is often done; please provide specific examples where you felt it ought to be and wasn't.
• " real teeth in the banning policy, even to the extent of notification of potential hate crimes in multi-user IPs (which are usually public-funded)" - {{sofixit}} You want to do the work? There are people working on contacting the ISPs of particularly persistant or troublesome vandals; I'm not one of them, so I don't know exactly who they are, but look around the Wikipedia namespace, and/or ask the Foundation, you'll find them. If you demonstrate that you are mature, and can provide useful help, I'm sure they'd be delighted to have more help. It's a pretty thankless job.

Look forward to your reply. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To expand on Jesse's final bullet point, the primary project that I know of in this realm can be found at WP:ABUSE. It's a new project (it has been in existence for a little less than a month), but from what I've seen they're doing a great job. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

70.72.5.126?

I reported User_talk:70.72.5.126 for vandalism, as he/she has been blocked twice and has vandalized three times since then, on the 17th and 18th. They were removed from the list because they hadn't done anything in the last 40 minutes, but I think this IP should be blocked for good, as they appear to be repeat offenders, even after many warnings. --Awiseman 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

IPs, unless they are open proxies, are never permanently banned; we often have no way of knowing if it's the *same* person. --Durin 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Is there anything to do then? I hate to just sit around until they do something else. --Awiseman 22:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• IPs that have a persistent track record of vandalism, with little or no positive contributions and prior histories of being blocked, are often blocked relatively rapidly after vandalism continues. In such cases as this, it is often useful to place a {{repeat vandal}} tag on the talk page for the IP. --Durin 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambigulation Extremes

On an issue unrelated to the above, I've found that someone has linked a lot of dinosaur entries to others. An example is Helopus, which is linked to Euhelopus. Now, this was done because Helopus was preoccupied, but this link makes it impossible to make an entry to the original Helopus, which is a bird. Others, such as Polyonax are historically important on their own; or just one opinion. My point is this system is making it impossible to put other points of view. CFLeon 23:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is really off topic for this page, but: if you, for example, want to write an article specific to Helopus (and feel it's sufficiently different from Euhelopus to warrant that -- frankly I have no idea), all you need to do is click the link in the "Redirected from Helopus" line at the top of the page (after you're redirected). You will then be able to edit the Helopus page, remove the redirect, and add whatever content you like. --Rehcsif 04:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I've done something like this for Helopus so someone coud put something at Helopus (bird) ( and Helopus (plant) for that matter), cheers Cas Liber 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Need more admins to monitor AIV

I have noticed that at times, there are little or no admins monitoring the AIV, causing vandals to run rampid while the alerts fill up. Many users may not get their requests fullfilled in at least an hour before an admin checks up on the AIV. Could we please get more admins to monitor the AIV so it will work as smooth as possible? Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some examples. While it certainly is always nice to have more help, I haven't seen a backlog. Of course, I may have missed it, which is why I'm asking for examples. An example would consist of two diffs - one when a report was added, and the 2nd when it was removed as dealt with. If you find such a pair with a long period in between, I'll be more convinced. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I check this page whenever I'm on..is this only during certain times of the day? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that some requests are just wrong (have grown stale or whatever). Admins are hesitant to remove them because someone else might want to act upon them and thus they languish and a backlog grows. I think all important cases are handled quickly. BrokenSegue 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, am perfectly happy to close requests as "no action" if I consider that's the right thing to do; I hope that most others feel the same. One of the nice things about this page is that it(used to, and will soon again) say, right at the top in big letters: if your request is wrong for this page, it will be removed with no further action. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this too during certain times of the day. IMHO it's just something that happens and there isn't a whole lot we can do about it - after all people have to sleep and go to work sometime. If you want an example, a quick check of the first page of the history revealed this from today: 2 vandals added at 21:50 and 21:59. They weren't removed until 30-40 minutes later. I'm sure if you went through the history, you could probably find an example like this or two every day. As I said, IMHO it's just a fact of life. --Bachrach44 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, of the two, the IP was blocked 5 minutes later, but the sockpuppet wasn't blocked until 27 minutes later. I don't think this was a case of people not watching AIV enough, I think it was a case of sockpuppet decisions taking longer than vandalism decisions. But I believe you that there are examples. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have AIV on my watchlist, and have the watchlist open at all times when I'm around from 0-8 UTC roughly. I agree that at times there seems to be an assumption by admins that it is always staffed, when it is not. See User talk:Ldp linux. I {{test4}} three times and it was on AIv for four hours before it was expired by the admin. Hopefully by next monday it will always be staffed from 0-8 on weekdays if all goes to plan.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The price of "An encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is 24-hour anti-vandalism coverage. Perhaps a duty roster is needed, or bots that send out SMS messages when there's a backlog for more than a few minutes. --John Nagle 03:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just my eventualist nature, but I don't think anything so drastic is needed. The problem is simply that there are certain times of the day when fewer people (and fewer admins) are online, which leads to less AIV coverage. The correlary to this is that if there are fewer people online, there are also fewer vandals online. As we add more admins, we will naturally increase our coverage, and these lags will slowly shrink and vanish. --Bachrach44 03:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping a close eye on it during my 1 week admin career when I'm on in the afternoons (WET, which is the same as UK time) but even then things seem to get taken care of fairly quickly. To comment on Bachrach44's point, I've seem elsewhere the theory that school vandalism from the UK is a big problem because Wikipedians are at work or not up yet, so the mice can play. I'm not necessarily agreeing with that, because a great deal of 'pedians are students / work from home / from all over the world / total bums. What does seem to happen is that newer admins and a few real stalwarts do a lot of the blocking, AIV fatigue does seem to hit a lot of admins, I guess the hard-on for vandal blocking just deflates after a few weeks. Deizio talk 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In so far as the vandals operating from schools are concerned, I would suggest quick, short blocks to protect the project and to discourage them. I'm assuming they are in a computer lab or library and that their time is limited. If after an edit or two they find their access denied (perhaps without the reward of a warning), they may move on to doing homework or other productive pursuits. Also, a short block will let the next person to come along work unencumbered. I've also seen them competing. It was as if they were trying to out vandal the kid next to them. A short, quick block would end that game quickly and save us some effort in repairing the damage. Cheers.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To comment on above, I don't think there are times of the day where Wikipedia is less edited. The major English speaking countries, UK, USA, and Australia are all in vastly different time zones. The US has something like six time zones. So, with all of these different time zones, I don't think there is any time in a 24-hour period that is less prone to vandalism than others. I can predict in the early morning local time here (US Eastern Time), there will be UK school vandalism. In the evening and night, the vandalism comes from Australia. During the day here, this vandalism comes from the US. So there is no reprieve, no hours that are less vandalised than others.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there will soon be a reduction in school vandalism from the United States. Within the next few weeks, schools are out for the summer.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think park of the problem is that when you're fighting vandalism, even a short delay an feel like forever and leaves the person doing the fighting feelig powerless - I know it has to me. In general though, the system works very well, and sure some vandals are left to run for too long, but short of giving everyone blocking power, there's not much that can be done. Anyway, I've just been made an admin and will now be watching this page, so that may help slightly. Kcordina ^Talk 12:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that such a feeling is common. It is also misapplied. The way to "fight" vandalism is to fix bad changes, that's all. Blocking is not a punitive measure, it is a convienent way to (slightly) lower the number of bad changes that need to be fixed, sometimes. That's all it is. Anyone who thinks they are "fighting" vandalism by making blocks is nothing less than confused. However, I am grateful for you watching this page, and for your other contributions to the 'pedia. This just needed to be clarified. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hogwash. You're the one who's misguided. If the Admins would block more vandals and do it rapidly, the rest of us wouldn't need to spend so much time reverting vandalism. Block them--turn the water off at the spigot vice mopping up the overflowing water--that'd be a far better way to fight vandals. Requiring user accounts with verified email addresses would deter them too. Rlevse 17:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVIL! I certainly strongly agree with JesseW (and I think the majority of admins feel the same) that blocking should be used as (a) as a last resort and (b) to protect the encyclopaedia, not punish problem users. Turning a vandal into a productive editor is always a better result than banning them. --Nick Boalch\^talk 17:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rlevse on this. Blocking stops vandalism; reversion is damage repair. Far too much effort is going into repairing vandalism. I'd like to see blocking and partial page protection used much more extensively. More than one vandalism per week should turn on partial page protection. If you disagree, spend eight hours on RC patrol and then express an opinion. We've also got to fix it so that IP blocks don't block verified users, so IP blocks can be used more freely. --John Nagle 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Blocking does not stop vandalism. Blocking requires that the vandal go to more trouble to continue vandalizing. Unless they are entirely unable to change their IP (which is hardly ever true), it does not stop it. Convicing the vandals that their work is not worth it (by any of a variety of methods - ignoring them, reverting quickly, warnings, forcing them to use different accounts, etc.) is a way to "stop" (some) vandalism. But we are not here to stop vandalism, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Reversion is improving the encyclopedia - blocking is not. Lets not forget this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

While technically blocking does not stop vandalism, what it does is increase the hurdle to vandalising. Most vandals do so because it is easy and the vast majority will either not know how to change their IP (I'm pretty computer literate and wouldn't have a clue how to do so), or now bother - they'll go off and do something else daft that they can do straight away. Also, to some degree seeing people reverting their edits quickly is why people vandalise - they enjoy seeing other people fret over their stupid actions. Read the history of willy on wheels and it seems they started because they got pleasure from the trouble they cauased others. At the end of the day, the background doesn't really matter, we're here to build a better encyclopedia, so lets get on with that rather than discussing probably irresolvable points. Kcordina ^Talk 08:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove any entry that you processed

I've noticed that some admins leave in some entries to wait and see if the account vandalises after a warning. I don't think that is the purpose of this page. This page is for rapid response to vandalism, which should really just be a block, but can also include making a warning and taking no action (remember, this page should actually be used by non-admins who want to block a user because the user continued their actions even after receiving a blocking warning (test3, test4, spam2, spam3). All three actions still require the entry to be removed because this page is meant to be a "quick log". There is a reason why we add "LIST EMPTY" or "LIST NOT EMPTY" in our edit summaries: so other admins know that actions still need to be taken on the list.

Leaving an entry in the page is counterproductive to this "quick action". If the account continues to vandalise after the warning, that account can be listed again on this page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. (edit conflict) Would a more appropriate place for listing these accounts to see if they continue vandalising be Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (the former Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress)?. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Item #2 under "Do not report here" states, "Vandals needing to be blocked - see WP:AIV instead." I do not believe leaving a report up for a few minutes for rechecking should go to WP:RFI because, if they resume, it will be noticed much sooner (and a block issued as necessary) here. RadioKirk talk to me 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen other admins do it, and I do, too, just to leave it fresh for checking back in a few minutes. The reporting editor may have moved on to other work. RadioKirk talk to me 17:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily the original reporting editor, but any other editor who notices vandalism elsewhere would still see it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite possible; I still don't see a need to remove a tool, which I believe the "leaving for a few minutes" practice is. RadioKirk talk to me 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it adds unnecessarily backlog. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism was created as a rapid response tool. I think "leaving for a few minutes" removes this, and duplicates efforts of Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. I could be wrong about the latter, because from what I remember, Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress was split into Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my understanding of the split as well, and is the reason why a vandal-stopped-after-last-warning-but-history-suggests-we-wait-a-few-minutes situation should not go to WP:RFI, in my view. My opinion is known, though, so I'll wait for others to chime in. :) RadioKirk talk to me

Actually, Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress was split into Wikipedia:Requests for investigation and Wikipedia:Long term abuse. I wasn't here when this page (AIV) was established (late May 2005), but I suppose it was probably part of VIP before then. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what became Wikipedia:Long term abuse was actually a sub-page of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. I could be wrong, though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference here is this page "ideally" and this page in practice. Ideally, vandals should only be reported here if they've vandalized after their final warning. In that case, there would be no need to leave any alerts, as all cases would either be concluded by a block or something along the lines of "not clear vandalism, please post this somewhere else." However, in practice, some users post vandals here who have not been properly warned or have not vandalized since their "final warning." In the final warning case, I can see the benefits of leaving the alert on the page for a few more minutes- some vandals are slow, and it's hard to determine if they've moved on, or are just picking their next target. By leaving the alert here, yourself or another admin can check it to see if this has occurred. By removing it, you put more pressure on other contributors to catch the vandal again, list them here again, and have the admins check again. This may not always work out well if the vandal is doing sneaky vandalism or hitting low profile pages. Anyway, just my two cents. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict x2) I agree, I don't see the problem with an alert being left up for a short while, with a note attached (so another admin can process the more urgent alerts first). Reports on RFI usually take quite a while (days, sometimes even weeks) to process, hence the name change away from "Vandalism in progress". Incidentally, related to the post above about not enough admins watching this page- there is rather of a shortage doing so at WP:RFI, any help appreciated! Petros471 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it clogs it up. If someone wants to leave an alert for a short while, it should be left in another section to differentiate it from alerts that have to be acted upon quickly, like another subheading, or perhaps another page that admins can put on their watchlists. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the purpose of leaving a note underneath; the subheading may not be a bad idea, but sometimes admins are in a hurry to get through the actual backlog (to limit the damage to the encyclopedia) and may not find that practical. RadioKirk talk to me 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Deathphoenix. Entries, however addressed, should be removed PDQ. If the admin issues test4 rather than blocking, then they should keep an eye on the relevant IP's contributions for a few minutes. If that doesn't work, and they vandalise again, then an RC patroller should re-list them.

If an entry is left here deliberately then it only duplicates effort: someone else will have to check it out, even if there's no reason to do so. The Land 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

217.60.78.38

This user has continued vandalizing articles after they recieved their "last warning." I guess that means a block is warranted? Cosmos 11:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Next time please post alerts on the main page rather than the talk page, where they'll be likely to get a faster response. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)