Wikipedia talk:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Full set of warnings
I disagree strongly with this statement: "Vandals should always receive a full set of warnings before being reported, unless there is severe vandalism, or a history of vandalism. If you come across an anon's talk page with previous reports within the last few days, it is considered acceptable by most to begin with a level 2 or 3 warning but if there is no history of vandalism they should be warned with a level 1 template (except in extreme cases)." Especially the emphasis placed on "always". All the level 1 templates assume good faith. The vast majority of what I revert as vandalism could not possibly be called good faith by anyone possessing the slightest modicum of intelligence, and I rarely use {{uw-vandalism1}}. I refuse to patronize people by pretending that they may have replaced a page with "poop" by accident, and if they did by some freak accident {{uw-vandalism2}} isn't particularly harsh sounding in my opinion. {{uw-delete1}} is another story, because it's a lot more difficult to tell whether someone accidentally deleted content or not than it is to tell whether or not they wrote "George Bush is a dickwad" in good faith. Other editors feel differently about placing a first level vandalism template, but then there has always been a level of independence given to recent change watchers as to which template to start with. I feel taking that away in favor of mindlessly applying the templates in consecutive order is counterproductive. Perhaps the wording could be changed to something like "Vandals should only be reported after they have been sufficiently warned, but what constitutes sufficient warning is left to the judgment of the reporter and the blocking admin. Keep in mind that regardless of what order you apply the templates in a user should always receive a final warning (a level 4 or 4im template) and have vandalized after receiving it before being reported, and only in the most extreme or obvious of circumstances will a user be blocked if they have not received a warning within the past 24 hours." possibly giving examples of actual vandalism and the warning applied. Because that is how things have always worked, and what is on WP:VAN, which states "They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession."Emphasis mine. Unless you wish to make this proposal a policy itself, I would recommend you refrain from including things which are not supported by existing policy.--Dycedarg ж 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Other disruptive behavior"
The text reads "Other disruptive behaviour such as spamming, and blatant violations of the username policy may also be reported but be sure that there isn't somewhere more appropriate to report." This isn't really helpful to the reader, because they are left to find these other places. Plus, isn't persistent spamming basically treated like vandalism? How about we change it to something like:
- Administrator intervention against vandalism is a place to report current vandals who are engaging in persistent vandalism, including spamming. Blatant violations of the username policy may also be reported, but non-obvious cases should be dealt with by following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing_with_problem_usernames.
-SpuriousQ (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Section move?
Should "When reporting at AIV is not appropriate" (which I renamed to be more in line with other policies) be moved to directly after "When to report" so you have a full set of circumstances and criteria before going on to how to report? Bubba hotep 08:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me -- I like the inverted pyramid model for this sort of page. "How to report" is easy to find, and seems to follow in the order you mentioned. I changed the section heading, too, earlier. :p The current one sounds okay to me (especially with your reasoning), although I might like it if we adjusted the "When to report" heading to match it a little more closely. Consistency between them is more important than the particular name, at least to me; anybody else have an opinion on that second bit? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some tweakage
Great page! I polished up the grammar a bit, and added a section "What to report" that parallels "when to report" and "how to report." Raymond Arritt 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
