Wikipedia talk:Abuse response/Archive 2

New process of reports

When my new archival bot is up and running for this page, all the reporting and actioning process will be changed.

• When you have successful actioning (such as IP range banning), you add the {{ARA|a}} template followed by a summary and your full signature ({{ARA|a}} Banned IP Range 127.127.x.x ~~~~) to the end of the report and the bot will archive it.
• When you are rejecting a request, you add the {{ARA|r}} template followed by your signature ({{ARA|r}} ~~~~) and the bot will archive it.
• If you wish to add a clerk note to any request, you can add {{ARA|n}} followed by your note and your signature. The bot will not action on this template.

A update will be posted here when the bot is running successfully, therefore will need immediate changing to this new process. Extranet is now E ^talk 06:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This process will need to start as at 2:00 UTC today in order for bot trials to begin. Use the process templates above and the bot will automatically archive them for you. E ^talk 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Joining project for wrong reasons?

User:Summers95926 appears to have put his name here because of cited material from the Nora Greenwald article which he wished to have removed. His comment says "investigating use of material not cleared with article subjects." If I understand the point of this project, then he doesn't.--SarekOfVulcan 15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlog - hardly worth making reports

The backlog here is so large, I see reports that are several months old, and some seem to indicate a level of urgency (such as an IP range with 40 sockpuppets in it). Does posting a report here do any good, or is it just to archive information about past abuse? -Amatulic 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am finally starting to work my way through a lot of the abuse reports. We are developing a system that will help with this (using bots) and we will hopefully get through them all in a few weeks (at least start the process of investigating or rejecting). We are always looking for new volunteers to help so if you would like to help in this project, just let me know and I would be glad to sign you up. -Andrew4010 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't one need administrator privileges to take action on these? What would I do as a regular user? -Amatulic 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, any user can help. We simply follow simple procedure found here: Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/Guide_to_abuse_reports. - Andrew4010 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New alerts

Should we ask people to give a reason sign their additions to the new alerts section, just as is done with WP:AIV ?AndrewRT(Talk) 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

<-- The following are examples of how to report a vandal on this page. Please copy and paste an appropriate example to the very bottom of the page. Anonymous Users (IP addresses): * {{IPvandal|IP address}} brief reason for listing (keep it short) ~~~~

Why five?

in light of the recent news about vandalism from certain well known companies, should we relax the rule about 5 blocks?

In some cases you could argue that investigation is worthy after just one case of vandalism! AndrewRT(Talk) 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearing backlog

I figure it's time to breathe some life back into this process, so I'm clearing out the backlog by rejecting cases where the vandalism has stopped, and accepting cases where the vandalism is still continuing. If any of you would like to help, I'd appreciate it! --Darkwind (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

204.10.221.252 (talk · contribs · block log)

I'm not sure how to post this, or whether this has already been investigated, based on the message on the talk page and a mention in the block history. This IP has provided vandalism for several years, and has had a dozen blocks, most recently for 3 months in April. There was vandalism activity today (three articles). I'm not sure if the previous "last warning" from a few weeks ago was recent enough to ask for AIV, so I added a new one and am posting it here to see what should be done. Rigadoun (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A report to AIV doesn't seem to be necessary at the moment since the vandal has stopped for the moment (perhaps because the school day is over? This seems to be an education-related IP address). Based on the LARGE number of blocks in the IP's history, the activity today, and the fact that this is most likely a school, I'd accept this for investigation and possible reporting to the school if you open a new abuse alert by following the new alert instructions on the main page.

Also, in a case like this, with such a large history of vandalism on this IP, you could probably report this IP (or any other with a similar history) to AIV at any time the vandal is active, even without warning. --Darkwind (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot system

I've been using the bot templates as I've been clearing the backlog, and now that I've fixed my signature (d'oh), it seems to be working rather well.

The one exception to that is the bot doesn't work well with the table layout of the open cases currently being used, and after actioning an open case, one still has to come and remove the rest of the table from the open cases section. Since all of the information in the tables can be found on the report itself, one click away, I propose removing the tables and just listing the wikilink to the subpage for the case in the appropriate section.

Since I seem to be the only project member active recently, I'm just going to be bold and convert the main page to that format now. We can always revert if there's a reason not to that hasn't occurred to me. --Darkwind (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Notification of indefinite block of an IP

I posted this to WP:AN and someone recommended I inform WP:ABUSE. I have indefinitely hard-blocked 75.139.45.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per request of the Technical Services Supervisor - Shelby County Schools. A request was made at my talk page and I followed with an e-mail to verify (the request as well as the sender's identity) and to ask about soft-block vs. hard-block. The response confirmed the request and further requested a hard-block. Please advise if I should forward the confirmation e-mail somewhere for future reference. Also advise if I should take any further action or modify the block in any way. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to some of the archived discussions from this talk page, it looks like such requests are supposed to be sent to info-en AT wikimedia.org so OTRS can have a permanent record of the request and handle it through their procedures (office action, whatnot). However, that might be out of date; I'm not an admin so I don't really know if there's a more current procedure for an organization requesting a block. As for why we at WP:ABUSE need to be informed, I assume that's in case there's an open abuse report on that IP, which there is not at this time (there ought to be a header on the IP's talk page whenever there's an open abuse report). Thanks for keeping us in the loop, though! --Darkwind (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, perhaps you should forward the e-mail from the school board to OTRS at that address for record keeping just in case, and make it clear the block is already in place. --Darkwind (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like a plan. Thanks! BTW, an arbitrator suggested that the block be lifted in a month or so. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template idea for noncompliant abuse reports

Generic message

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Unfortunately, this IP has not been blocked enough times, and therefore does not merit an abuse report. Next time, please make sure that the IP in question has been blocked at least five times in recent history.Thank you. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Username included message

Thank you for making a report about 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Unfortunately, this IP has not been blocked enough times, and therefore does not merit an abuse report. Next time, please make sure that the IP in question has been blocked at least five times in recent history.Thank you. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion?

What do you think about it I tried to modularize it around the not-aiv one.

The current code to use this is: {{Subst:User:VivioFateFan/at|Username|Additional information}}. Username and "Additional information" are both optional, see page User:VivioFateFan/at for details. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Holidaysburg Area School District Vandalism

After noticing vandalism to a page I watch, I checked the IP's contributions page and found it to be a source of frequent, and blatant vandalism. Considering that the IP belongs to the Holidaysburg Area School District, I am posting here to request a soft block be applied to the IP. A warning of the possibility of this and the procedure for doing so are already posted on IP's talk page. Thank you!

--TarrVetus (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist abuse from IPs

The policy states that IPs must have 5 blocks before being reported here. My question is, if an IP (168.216.25.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is registered to an elementary school, and that IP address keeps adding the N-word, can it be reported anyway? It seems like such editing would result in a suspension or other disciplinary action by the school and I would think they would want to know about it. Thoughts?--Old Hoss (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Probably not. However, you could contact the school yourself if so desired, there is no policy against directly filing abuse reports with the ISPs (in this case, the school). I suppose they have the five blocks policy because ISPs are more likely to respond to a complaint regarding an account which has been blocked various times. But who knows, some ISPs are less tolerent than others, so if you feel the school should be notified, be bold and contact them yourself. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But please remember that ISP reporting is generally a last resort. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz ^talk 13:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

Just a friendly message I was going through the history of the "Police Station" article and I noticed you did something about "donut shops", I'm not going to bore you with the Wiki warning templates and the associated crap. But please do not include things like this as even though it is a bit of a joke and we all like them it is just unhelpful.

Thanks again

Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Contacting

Can the person who places an IP address in abuse reports accept their own complaint? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware yes. The only intention for this is to help centralise the discussion etc so we don't get 10 people contacting the ISP about the same thing and don't get unnecessary duplication of effort. Also it helps to centralise the guides and stuff so that people know what they should and shouldn't do and we don't get people trying to report every minor incident to ISPs or cursing them, both of which is probably likely to result in them ignoring us. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Zone (in GMT format)

Many abuse depts require logs with the time zone in GMT format. Wikipedia logs do not display any time zone. Shouldn't this problem be fixed? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix. Wikipedia natively displays time in UTC, and you can set what time zone logs display as through my preferences. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Pinged at ws8.100ws.com (64.72.112.110) Alpha Red, INC Used (69.142.159.165) as a proxy. Not sure what to do about it... 76.109.174.153 (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the Wikiproject on Open Proxies. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Languages?

Why bother insisting on getting a contactor who communicates in the language universal to an ISPs region, they can translate messages in most cases. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true for written contact, but some of our contractors do phone calls. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah-ha, now I see. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Schools and Universities?

I think the text particularly schools and universities should be removed; it could easily create the appearance that we only accept reports of vandals using school networks, which isn't true at all. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Why don't we configure a bot to reject requests about individual IPs that A> have never been blocked B> have been blocked less than three times C> have never contributed? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like that, if it can be done.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How would I name a report for 87.112.x.x - 87.115.x.x

This IP range, dynamically assigned by PlusNet, has long been used by banned User:Fredrick day, for vandalism, trolling, and general block evasion. It is unclear to me how many edits from this range are his, there appear to be some legitimate edits, but he makes legitimate edits sometimes. He is currently active as Special:Contributions/87.112.8.107, most admins have stopped blocking because he just reboots his modem to get a new IP, it hardly slows him down. He also uses local wireless routers, on occasion, but that he can easily reboot in this range would indicate this is a direct access, i.e., an ISP account of his, unless he's hacked a router. How should I report the range? --Abd (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's plusnet not orange. you'd be quicker reporting it here: http://www.plus.net/support/security/abuse/how_to_report_abuse.shtml --87.112.8.107 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fred came back before I did, I edited my comment from Orange to PlusNet before noticing his reply.... Thanks, Fred, helpful as always. I'm not reporting there, myself, I'm not authorized to report for Wikipedia, and I'm not reporting simply because of personal harassment, even though, rather obviously, he's wikistalking me, but that's been clear for a long time. So I'm going through process here. --Abd (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "I'm not authorized to report for Wikipedia"? We're all volunteers; anyone can slap their name down on the list of investigators or contactors. However, we do thank you for bringing this issue to us rather than reporting it yourself; many people who are inexperienced in abuse reporting (I'm not saying that you are) screw up, and their reports are discarded. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that reason too. However, from the ISP point of view, how would I know if a complainant wasn't just another user trying to harass the editor? I'd pay attention to a responsible party, i.e., a rep of the web site owner, because that person has something to lose, compared to just another user. If this process doesn't work very well, maybe this is why! In any case, I didn't get an answer to my question... how to name the report.--Abd (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that we are not site administrators or anything; we are all "just another user." Yes, as a matter of fact, there are some ISPs that do refuse to accept reports from ABUSE volunteers, but if you're dealing with one of those, then you're in the wrong place; the Wikimedia Foundation is the site owners. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that page is just for PlusNet users, it refers others to [email protected]Abd (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm asking here to follow up on a suggestion by Prom3th3an.--Abd (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - Volunteer Requirements similar to WP:ADOPT but more stringent.

Due to the nature of the work we do here and the fact that vandals quite often show up on their own abuse reports, I’m concerned that it is currently too easy for vandals and other [ab]users to undermine the success of this forums goal as well as people who are in-experienced. For this reason I would like to discuss and propose some guidelines for contactors only (for now).

Guidelines

• Contactors should have demonstrated an interest in anti-vandalism, examples include being active in recent changes patrol etc and should ideally have WP:ROLLBACK as testimony to the above.
• Contactors should be well established (At least 1000 edits) and have a good general knowledge of Wikipedia's core policies, or what they mean in a nutshell. General knowlege of networking is a plus.
• Contactors should not have had blocks related to or have caused vandalism in the last 3 months.
• Contactors need to be polite and courteous to those whom they are contacting, for this reason, volunteers with a recent history of disruptive or otherwise incivil behaviour are discouraged from being a Contactor.
• Contactors are not allowed to have a confirmed history of sockpuppeting unless community consensus indicates otherwise on a per user basis. Such a discussion thread should occur at WP:AN.
• Contactors need to be taken seriously by the companies they are contacting and in this day and age if you are not equal to or above the age of 16, the chances of you being taken seriously decrease and thus less likely to achieve the desired outcome. For this reason we would advise against contactors who are not at least 16 years old. Contacting via email is the best way to avoid ageism.

Mailing List:

I would also like to suggest that a mailing list be setup for the contactors and that we CC out bound (to companies etc) to the mailing list so that everyone is in the loop and can answer enquiries quicker.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to increase the age limit. Being 16 might not be enough, instead, only someone who is of legal adult age in his/her country of residence should be allowed to contact ISPs in person or by phone. Being under 16 and contacting ISPs by email doesn't seem much of a problem, though. Chenzw  Talk  04:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently sixteen, and I've been dealing with abuse reports since I was 14. As a matter of fact, I've been dealing with more than just ISPs since then; I've been dealing with state and federal government agencies (such as the Office of the Florida Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission for these last two years in regard to spam and fraud complaints, and they are well aware of my age. However, because of legal complications, I would support a minimum age requirement of 13 years because companies are not allowed to obtain personal information from Americans younger than that, and parents are more likely to freak out if their kids, who are <13 years old, start getting phone calls, postal mailings, emails, etc from ISPs. Unless someone is making a phone call, however, ISPs wouldn't know that they were dealing with a little kid or a teenager; the only issue there would be bad communication skills, and that's an issue that applies with people of all ages, not just kids. However, we can't really ban anyone from submitting abuse reports because writing to ISPs or calling them does not require even a minor edit; anyone who sees an IP do something they don't like can do it. We can ban certain people from volunteering at WP:ABUSE, but we can't stop anyone from submitting abuse reports. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you getting at in regards to "anyone" can submit abuse reports, however the ISP's recognise (because WP:Abuse is on wikipedia) wp:abuse as a semi official forum. The wikipedia community entrust WP:ABUSE to act on thier behalf so that they dont have to do it themselves thus I think the above guideline will insure that this occurs and that only trusted people do so. I still think 16 should be the bench mark, as there are plenty of people sixteen and over.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose There does not need to be so much red tape concerning abuse reports. An age limit? A review of contributions? Drama filled AN threads? No thanks. Mww113 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Mww113. We need more volunteers as it is, and these proposed rules are just going to make matters worse. The proposed requirements are probably not going to stop the ignorant (for lack of a better term) people from slapping their (user)names on the list of volunteers, and the newbies that volunteer as it is don't really get involved here, so they're not doing any damage. The five pillars says Wikipedia does not have strict rules, but that's becoming more and more incorrect everyday. If we enact a policy like this, then it probably won't be long before admin rights are required to contribute here, or worse yet, checkuser rights. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I support the requirement that "contactors should not have had blocks related to or have caused vandalism in the last 3 months"; in fact, I think they should not have caused vandalism in the last 3 months, nor have been blocked for vandalism any time in the last 1 year. Likewise, I agree with the proposal to exclude confirmed sockpuppeteers except when there is community consensus or the alternate-account was WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I expect that the vast majority of constructive contributors have not vandalized in the last year, nor have operated abusive sockpuppets. Finally, those who are involved in editorial disputes should generally avoid reporting somebody with whom they have a dispute. But no need to multiply criteria; as User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC noted above, we need more volunteers. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Anything that makes it less likely that people will become contactors isn't much use. There's a couple of cases that have needed a contactor for months, and I don't think this proposal would help improve the backlog at all. --Deadly∀ssassin 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse by named accounts

Hi all. There's been an ongoing issue with socking from Tom Sayle. How would I go about getting his ISP contacted for constant evasion of blocks, both with named accounts and via IPs, vandalism, harassment, etc. [roux » x] 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't do anything about the registered accounts, but we may be able to do something if you compile a list of all of the IPs he's used (or at least five recently used ones), file a report using the form over on the project page for WP:ABUSE, and note that they are all sockpuppets of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PCHS-NJROTC (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 November 2008