| Revision as of 17:05, 27 April 2007 editHeimstern (talk | contribs)Administrators16,881 edits →[] and content related to []: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:09, 27 April 2007 edit undoJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →[] and content related to []: thank you for the responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
| My apologies if this is the wrong location for this comment, or if this comment shouldn't be made in any event. The above user has been blocked for at least the second time for violating the three-revert rule on content related to ], specifically regarding his conversion to some form of Christianity. He has made statements such as "Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christ" as per his comment on his 04:02 25 April 2007 edit summary on ] page. I believe that this problem might be solved if he were simply blocked from editing the two pages he most frequently reverts, ] and ], and also possibly ], which I have recently mistakenly called to his attention as also indicating Dylan is a Christian. His fundamental motivation in all of his edits on this subject seems to be ensure that, and I quote, "is Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window", something no other editor is trying to bring about anyway. ] 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | My apologies if this is the wrong location for this comment, or if this comment shouldn't be made in any event. The above user has been blocked for at least the second time for violating the three-revert rule on content related to ], specifically regarding his conversion to some form of Christianity. He has made statements such as "Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christ" as per his comment on his 04:02 25 April 2007 edit summary on ] page. I believe that this problem might be solved if he were simply blocked from editing the two pages he most frequently reverts, ] and ], and also possibly ], which I have recently mistakenly called to his attention as also indicating Dylan is a Christian. His fundamental motivation in all of his edits on this subject seems to be ensure that, and I quote, "is Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window", something no other editor is trying to bring about anyway. ] 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Not really the right place for this: ] is the closest I can think of. But just so you have an answer: There is no technical way to block a user only from specific pages; all blocks stop an editor from editing ''anything''. The only thing we could to would be to protect the pages from editing completely, which we needless to say don't want to do here. A user can be ''banned'' (not blocked) from editing specific pages, but that generally requires the intervention of the ]. They are not likely to step in unless it's clear there's no other way to handle this. So in short, this solution isn't going to something we can enact right now. ] 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | :Not really the right place for this: ] is the closest I can think of. But just so you have an answer: There is no technical way to block a user only from specific pages; all blocks stop an editor from editing ''anything''. The only thing we could to would be to protect the pages from editing completely, which we needless to say don't want to do here. A user can be ''banned'' (not blocked) from editing specific pages, but that generally requires the intervention of the ]. They are not likely to step in unless it's clear there's no other way to handle this. So in short, this solution isn't going to something we can enact right now. ] 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Sorry, then for the unnecessary comment, and thank you for your quick response. ] 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:09, 27 April 2007
 | Shortcut
|
|
The HBC AIV helperbots assist with the management of vandalism reports. Edit the following parameters in the page header to control the bot's behavior:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
block request
Hi, this is a user logged onto a computer that was recently informed would be blocked from editing following an abusive edit to a page on the Spanish Armada. I would like to inform the appropriate administrator that this computer is one in a school library which multiple users log onto daily. If you could, perhaps you could place a 'softened' block on this computer allowing only logged in and registered users to edit and blocking everyone else. Thank you, Treali Storm. (Internet alias, see http://journals.aol.com/trealistorm/traitor-starlesssky) I will probably be creating an account with wikipedia soon too under the username trealistorm most likely. 70.88.202.153 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Treali Storm
- I have taken care of this for you. SGGH 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Block Request on 209.232.112.226
Constant vandlism on the Oakland, California page.--Fizbin 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks to be a shared IP address, and I've tagged it as such. Since they've stopped by now, and somebody else is making useful edits, today, it seems a little late to do anything about this one. You may want to report problems to the AIV main page (rather than this talk page, which doesn't get looked at as often). Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Please monitor Noel Edmonds page
Socks of clear going keep adding the same image and same vandalism the latest to block is User:Cleargoing1point1 please monitor the page and block all new socks from this user.--Lucy-marie 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Page is now protected, but after page is unprotected, please report any socks to WP:AIV. I'll keep an eye on the article, too. Nishkid64 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Bug ID 9213
Bug ID 9213--VectorPotential 15:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um... what about it? // DecaimientoPoético 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just that about 99% of vandalism patrollers report anons here with the messages "Vandalism past final warning" when anons haven't been able to see these warnings since some time in December--VectorPotential 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some of them see the new messages bar all the time, some none of the time. I spent a while testing it with my IP a week ago and found that when I left and came back, I would get the new messages bar.
- Anyway, what are you suggesting should change at AIV? I also find the situation somewhat uncomfortable, but I don't have any solution to it. CMummert · talk 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I also noticed this. The "orange messages bar" never show up as an IP for me and I also tested it at school and the messages don't work. Really wish that a developer or someone with access to the code for Wiki can look at it and fix it. -- Hdt83 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh. I happened to leave a message for the IP at my school, today, and it was working fine with the orange box. Spotty coverage, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I also noticed this. The "orange messages bar" never show up as an IP for me and I also tested it at school and the messages don't work. Really wish that a developer or someone with access to the code for Wiki can look at it and fix it. -- Hdt83 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just that about 99% of vandalism patrollers report anons here with the messages "Vandalism past final warning" when anons haven't been able to see these warnings since some time in December--VectorPotential 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
question on block notification templates
Okay, let's say I block a school, and I use {{schoolblock}} as my blocking reason. Now they're going to see that when they try to edit. Is it necessary to leave any block notification on the user talk page? Is it even helpful to put {{schoolblock}} or anything there, or is it just a waste of time? — coelacan — 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've been told when they get the blocked message from MediaWiki:Blockedtext it actually shows a transclusion of {{schoolblock}} rather than just {{schoolblock}} as the block reason. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope so, although I just play it safe and do it twice. – Riana 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It definitely does show a transcluded template. I've tested it myself from a blocked IP. Now that the dropdown menus are there, there's no chance of mistyping it. If it's just a matter of them getting the message, then I guess I see no reason to leave one on the talk page as well. — coelacan — 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, good, I wasn't sure it worked, but now I'll save myself some time :) – Riana 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It definitely does show a transcluded template. I've tested it myself from a blocked IP. Now that the dropdown menus are there, there's no chance of mistyping it. If it's just a matter of them getting the message, then I guess I see no reason to leave one on the talk page as well. — coelacan — 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope so, although I just play it safe and do it twice. – Riana 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Block request for Nucomm International
Not sure if this is the proper approach, but it seemed like it. If you will visit the page, you will see the same IP that keeps vandalizing the page. It's people that work here, and it's frustrating to try to keep a neutral article when they label the CEO as a transvestite amongst other things. Is is possible to block the IP from editing without an established account? I'll take the hit from not being able to edit from work, but please do something if you can. Much appreciated. :) Fr0 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- This talk page is not for reporting vandalism. If it can't be listed with a short description, try WP:AN. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help but the link brought me back here when I clicked assitance with vandalism/to report. Can someone help me here? Fr0 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Username is a clear violation of the username policy
We are still getting these reports with summaries of "Username is a clear violation of the username policy" even when they are not. I have updated the green box again to make it as clear as I can. SGGH 13:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- there was a backlog of about 7 reports a few minutes ago, all but one were incorrectly reported some for FW's 6 days old! Others had no final warning, or were sockpuppetiers which aren't supposed to be reported here. Maybe we should make the green box flash and play music.... SGGH 10:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should destroy the username report functionality of Twinkle. :P That is the most obvious reason for this problem. They hit report username and Twinkle instantly adds that message to AIV. Funpika 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- AzaToth could code it so that someone can be sent to WP:U with a special query string; for example, "&unamevio=Gracenotes", and then add a button to the top of the page requesting that the user check the policy and if a blatant vio, report to AIV. Gracenotes § 13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should destroy the username report functionality of Twinkle. :P That is the most obvious reason for this problem. They hit report username and Twinkle instantly adds that message to AIV. Funpika 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- there was a backlog of about 7 reports a few minutes ago, all but one were incorrectly reported some for FW's 6 days old! Others had no final warning, or were sockpuppetiers which aren't supposed to be reported here. Maybe we should make the green box flash and play music.... SGGH 10:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The script needs to be changed to require a reason to be entered manually or it will not post. InBC 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So, maybe, instead of
case 'username':
if( TwinkleConfig.confirmUsernameToAIV && !confirm( "This will report the username to WP:AIV as blatantly inappropriate. Usernames should only be reported at AIV if they are clearly rude, inflammatory, unnecessarily long or confusing, too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, or are otherwise inappropriate. Borderline cases should be reported manually at WP:RFCN. Do you still want to report the username at AIV?" ) ) {
return;
}
twinklearv.reason = 'Username is a clear violation of the ].';
remove the confirm variable, and use
case 'username':
twinklearv.reason = prompt('Please explain why the username is a blatant violation. Some reasons include: a rude, inflammatory, or unnecessarily long or confusing username; one that is too similar to that of an existing user or of an organization and website.', '');
if (!twinklearv.reason) return;
Of course, this is intended to be a bit more work for the submitter, and ARV is meant to be convenient, so not sure what to do there. Gracenotes § 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't list...
I tried to list IP 131.170.90.2 as a repeat offender, but wasn't allowed to, for some curious reason. Please check them out. Esseh 06:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Shared IP, blocked by Riana, looks like. Thanks for letting us know. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Suspected sock puppets should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets
"Suspected sock puppets should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets." how much is this adhered to? Is it that blatant sockpuppets go to AIV and only those where people aren't sure go to the sock puppet reporting page? Because there are a lot of sockpuppets being reported at AIV which seems to contradict the "Suspected sock puppets should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets." sentence. SGGH 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a guy creating a sock every m9inute. I would block any reports for oompapa asap, in case I miss them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry? Is oompapa a user? and if that is the case under what criteria is a suspected sockpuppet placed in wp:suspected sockpuppets and under what criteria is it placed in AIV? SGGH 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious cases involving some of our highly abusive and prolific puppeteers should probably go here -- I mean really obvious, though, like "on wheels!" moves, more of what we've been dealing with at Turkey, and such. The sort of thing that would be blocked out of hand and on sight. Anything less obvious should probably get some sort of discussion elsewhere, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luna Santin (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
- Sorry? Is oompapa a user? and if that is the case under what criteria is a suspected sockpuppet placed in wp:suspected sockpuppets and under what criteria is it placed in AIV? SGGH 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Bus stop and content related to Bob Dylan
My apologies if this is the wrong location for this comment, or if this comment shouldn't be made in any event. The above user has been blocked for at least the second time for violating the three-revert rule on content related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to some form of Christianity. He has made statements such as "Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christ" as per his comment on his 04:02 25 April 2007 edit summary on Talk:Bob Dylan page. I believe that this problem might be solved if he were simply blocked from editing the two pages he most frequently reverts, Bob Dylan and List of converts to Christianity, and also possibly List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, which I have recently mistakenly called to his attention as also indicating Dylan is a Christian. His fundamental motivation in all of his edits on this subject seems to be ensure that, and I quote, "is Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window", something no other editor is trying to bring about anyway. John Carter 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not really the right place for this: WP:ANI is the closest I can think of. But just so you have an answer: There is no technical way to block a user only from specific pages; all blocks stop an editor from editing anything. The only thing we could to would be to protect the pages from editing completely, which we needless to say don't want to do here. A user can be banned (not blocked) from editing specific pages, but that generally requires the intervention of the arbitration committee. They are not likely to step in unless it's clear there's no other way to handle this. So in short, this solution isn't going to something we can enact right now. Heimstern Läufer 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, then for the unnecessary comment, and thank you for your quick response. John Carter 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)