Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Counter-Vandalism Unit  
WikiProject iconThis project page is within the scope of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, a WikiProject dedicated to combating vandalism on Wikipedia. You can help the CVU by watching the recent changes and undoing unconstructive edits. For more information go to the CVU's home page or see cleaning up vandalism.

Spam from anonymous editors[edit]

The article requires multiple warnings. How do you warn an anonymous user, e.g., Does a complaint to, e.g.,, constitute a warning? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Go to their talk page and warn them, as with any user. WP can approach their ISP if necessary.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Report sections[edit]

Wondering if there would be any benefit to break8ng the "User reported" section into 2 sub-sections; "Registered accounts" and "IP-user sccounts"...? (or perhaps with different names, ie: "registered" and "unregistered", etc.) Just a thought - wolf 13:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism-only and spam-only accounts[edit]

I often see an administrator decline a report when the reported individual has done nothing but spam or vandalize with the rationale that they have not received sufficient warning.

Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only such accounts may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely.

While the policy does say "may be" and not "normally should be", I don't think giving a spammer or a vandal a free shot at doing it some more is a good idea.

When one of my reports is declined despite it being clearly Vandalism-only or spam-only, I get discouraged and tend to feel that reporting vandals and spammers here is a waste of time. When I see an admin who often declines disruption-only reports I sometimes just skip AIAV and report them at ANI.

Note that I am not talking about spam-once, vandalize once, or IP accounts with less than a dozen disruptive edits. Those are usually not worth reporting in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: There are really two questions, here. "Should this account be reported to AIV?", and "Should this account be blocked?". IMO the threshold for blocking should actually be lower than the one for reporting to AIV. Most of the time, they just give up and probably don't even remember the password the next day. But once reported, I agree with you that it's silly to not block an user who obviously knows that what they're doing is wrong. Leaving the report, or declining it, just because There! Are! Four! Warnings! causes the original problem: cluttering up the board. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately triggering the edit filter[edit]

See discussion at MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown § Deliberately triggering the edit filter (2), of relevance to AIV "regulars". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Bot to remove stale reports from AIV/TB2[edit]

I was about to suggest that MDanielsBot is broken. It seems, no, it was never approved to clear WP:AIV/TB2 reports in the first place. Should a bot clear reports there also? @Mdaniels5757: Are you interested in doing this? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)