Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Edit conflicts

It took me about 6 tries to get a notice in without an edit conflict. This is not the right way to implement a queue. Of course, mediawiki should try to apply the diff which the submit represents to the modified page; but anyway it would also be possible to direct users to an add section link.

I think this is important: many people won't try so hard. —Jemmy_tc 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You could use the '+' tab at the top of the page to avoid the edit conflicts. Addhoc (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of this; I'm saying that the page should direct users to do so. Perhaps I should just "be bold" and do it myself... —Jemmy_tc 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the AIV should be the page used to give general instruction to newcomers to Wikipedia. By the time most editors have sussed out how to report vandals round here, they are usually pretty au fait with Wikipedia and it's usage. Though for the few who aren't we don't mind pointing them in the right direction and if anywhere it belongs here. ^Khukri 10:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we're talking about technical advice about how to use this page, not "general instruction to newcomers." And I notice that as a matter of fact the '+' tab is not used (nobody in the current history of 50 used it), and indeed the "bot-reported" and "user-reported" sectioning discourages it. —Jemmy_tc 01:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The '+' tab exists only on talk pages. There isn't one on WP:AIV ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The __NEWSECTIONLINK__ text which causes the '+' to display has been in place at WP:AIV for some time now for this reason. The '+' should appear right next to the 'edit' tab when using the default skin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:767-249ER

This user has vandalised a number of pages using his User Id User:767-249ER and anonymously and most recently he has made threats on my Talk Page. Is there anywhere I can report such threats? J Bar (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left final npa warning, and will monitor. ^Khukri 13:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts

Can we put a notice that reminds user that vandalism only accounts are accounts, not IPs? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do, I've taken to leaving messages about this on new vandal patrollers talk pages. User:Alexfusco5 has started an essay here, where it could be written. When I get the time, I'm going to add what actually constitutes "recent" final warning. ^Khukri 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got something akin to that here too. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with anonyuser

There is [what appears to be] one user repeatedly vandalizing the page Cliff Hangers by adding to the image caption a descriptor of the contestant shown (first it was a "black contestant", then "male" then they change the "a" to a "one", and then changed it to "a contestant likely to vote for..." some candidate). The edit seems to come from a unique IP every few times. What can be done about this type of user/vandalism. One of the edits was made by a user who also vanadalized another page, but otherwise they have been restricted to this page, seemingly. thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note for the most recent IP, and will watchlist the article - probably about the best thing to do with the slow-motion activity from the IPs. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jamierush

I added this user and mentioned "Image Vandalism." The request was declined because I used the wrong word and I meant to say "Repeated uploading of copyrighted material," which appears on WP:VAND. I was not sure if it was appropriate to add it directly back to the page, so I'm commenting here. Should this be relisted or listed on ANI (or not listed at all)? --Thinboy00 @76, i.e. 00:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistake on my part, as I removed the request. I shouldn't have removed the request, and I apologise for it. I wasn't really sure of that particular part anyway. Sorry for any inconvenience there. Spebi 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, we all make mistakes. --Thinboy00 @87, i.e. 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Xsyner

I've warned this user that it is against policy to remove block warnings and notices from his user talk page. He has repeatedly been removing these from his talk page. I gave him one official warning and eventually reported him at WP:AIAV. Nothing was done about it however. I've been told by several editors that doing what he was doing is against policy, but I can't seem to find the specific page it's on so I can backup my claim. Can anyone tell me if this is actually policy and if it is where to find it. Thanks. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 02:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, removing warnings is allowed, and it's tacit acknowledgment. Block notices are another matter. Declined unblocks specifically say in the template not to remove them. I think leaving the block notices just makes administrative common sense, even if it's not required by code. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

After I reported the user, nobody did anything about it and it was removed. Should I try again? ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it says not to remove it while blocked, but this person isn't blocked anymore. Thanks anyway. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 05:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pizanob

Pizanob has been vandalizing the article Empezar Desde Cero, saying "Both singers [Yuridia and Shakira] would ultimately beat them out to number 1." That is vandalism. I already warned him.Empezardesdecero1718 (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)