Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Warning IP Users

How, exactly, would one go about warning a misbehaving user who doesn't have an account here and doesn't read the Talk pages? Honest question, so I can get on with doing so before I request the block (I will have to request it, because that misbehavior is not going to change). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whcernan (talk • contribs)

@Whcernan: - You would use the warning templates found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, generally starting at level 1 (except for the most egregious vandalism). The IP user will still get a notification that they have new messages. The ball is then in their court - to ignore the warnings and earn a block, or to stop. After the level 4 or 4im warning, report them at WP:AIV. There are some tools, such as Twinkle that make a lot of this much easier. SQL^{Query me!} 02:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Spaces between reports

Does anyone else think it would make everyone's lives easier to add spaces (ie. a single space gap) between each individual report? ceranthor 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the bullets do the job.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the number of edit conflicts I get on this page, anything that might reduce them would be welcome.
I am not sure how much impact it would have, or whether I have misunderstood it, but Wikipedia:Avoiding edit-conflicts#Using reply-separators states "In a dialogue, such as for a talk-page or project-page discussion, edit-conflicts can be reduced by separating various replies by a reply-separator line. Any text could be used, even a blank line"
If a blank line reduces edit conflicts, it would be very beneficial. - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. ceranthor 17:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot to clear stale reports

Since more reports of AIV backlogs are making their way to WP:AN, I thought it worth bringing up here the suggestion that we get the bot to clear stale reports that have not been actioned. I'd suggest 4 or 5 hours on the off chance, which will give time for multiple admins to review in case a stale vandal starts up again. This of course would not prevent administrators from clearing declined reports manually at their discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd prefer people clearing manually since that ensures that someone has at least glanced at the report before declining as stale. -- Luk ^talk 16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If a report has been here for more than a few hours, I consider it to have been declined be default. Blocking without ongoing disruption would be against the blocking policy, and if the disruption continues, I am more than positive it will be back here within seconds. Having the bot clear it would stop giving people the false impression that AIV is backlogged (it never is, because virtually all the reports are reviewed quickly even if not commented on), and it would also hopefully help with the bad reports that we (frequently) get here by making it less likely for an account to sit there until an admin who agrees with the vandal patroller happens to pop by. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that the suggestion at AN seems to be 8-10 now which I have no problem with. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, 8-10 is conservative, but reasonable. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I have a small feeling it might be too conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even when AIV is considered backlogged, it's rare for any report to go all the way to 8-10 hours without being touched. If I were the developer creating this bot, I'd want to ensure that it would be used often enough to be meaningful. Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

6 hours? We have reports on AIV at the time I'm posting this that are that old, but that should give enough time that multiple admins should have looked at every report. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Six hours is enough IMHO. If it hasn't been actioned by that point, it's probably not going to be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

Or we could ask someone to programme a bot to remove reports after they've been declined with one of the {{AIV}} templates, much like at RfPP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Depends on which template. I will sometimes ask questions if I don't find what's going on to be obvious. Probably a sign your report didn't belong at AIV to begin with however. SQL^{Query me!} 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The bot at RfPP, Cyberbot I, manages to avoid clearing reports marked with the question template. @Cyberpower678: is this someting you might be able to help us with? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think 8 hours is the safest option. 10 is overkill, but if someone hasn't acted on it in 8 - it's not likely to be acted on. SQL^{Query me!} 02:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer 6, but I'm fine with 8 if we need to split the baby. I also support having the bot clear reports like Harry suggests. I don't see a reason it shouldn't do both. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I consider anything that hasn't been acted upon after a couple of hours as essentially declined and I routinely remove them myself (with an edit summary something like "listed for >6 hours without any admin willing to block"). Automatic removal of those reports sounds like a good idea to me. I would favor 6 hours at most. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I also prefer six, but I'd settle for eight if that's what's needed to make this happen. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

Six hours sounds good to me. Mz7 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion here on how to set up a bot for this task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Worth keeping archives of reports?

Per the above, I wanted to float the idea of such a bot maintaining some semblance of an archive (sort of like is seen as WP:PERM or WP:RFPP) to add a note at least about recently reported/declined requests. I noticed recently that a number of reports were declined, then manually wiped, then re-reported and acted upon later, despite no additional edits. That sort of thing would ideally be avoided. An archive need not be lengthy to be useful, perhaps no more than a week. I imagine there'd also be some interest in noting users that recently came off a block or on reports on users with only one or two edits/warnings to their talkpage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Report removed without explanation

I reported a spammer here:[1]

...and my report was removed without comment here:[2]

Even if my report was completely wrong, shouldn't I get a reason why it was removed? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Ronhjones: who did the clearing, but I'll say that while I do think only three hours without inaction or comment before removal is a tad overeager (per above), the page was severely cluttered before (mostly my fault). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like my bad. I must have missed it as there were plenty of declined items before and after it. Also part of the problem is that the page flags a backlog even when the report has been declined, so it's useful not to leave declined ones too long - looks like we could do with any new bot removing declined reports as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! If you do end up with a new bot removing declined reports, could it also notify the filer? It is a bit inconvenient going through the history to find a report that has disappeared. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)