Forum:Regarding vandals

Last year, Sam opened a forum about directly blocking vandals without the need for a warning. While most users have agreed on this, the forum has become inactive and was closed. Due to this being a serious topic, I'd like to reopen it here. Regular users could give the standard warning to vandals due to them not having blocking powers, but for admins I think that there is really no point in giving warnings over and over to users that come here just to vandalize and purposely disrupt the wiki. For one very minor act of vandalism I'd agree with keeping up with the warning system or give a short block of only 1 day or less, depending on the situation. But in greater cases it's only a few mouse clicks to directly block them for the first time, especially that the talk page warnings rarely work. It goes without saying that these direct blocks are only for vandalism, and not other types of violations. 08:42, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
In fairness, as a standard user, I see no point in talk page warnings neither. You know they won't give a shit about it in most cases and it's sometimes gonna motivate them into further vandalizing. 08:48, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * I did think of that at some point; I don't have anything against this idea. 08:58, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a warning on a talk page really motivates vandals all that much TBH. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 16:14, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah, me neither. 18:29, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

So what we're proposing is jumping straight past the warning stage for blatant vandals for whom COD:AGF does not need to be applied? 10:08, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, for blatant vandals only. 10:36, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool with this. Talk page warnings hardly ever help. (Also has it really been almost a year from that forum damn time flies) 10:33, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

To be honest. After that forum I've just been doing it as I proposed. Given no one complained I assumed that was overall consensus. Given I made the last forum I obviously still support the idea. 12:21, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

In the cases of blatant vandalism, I see little point in warning them. Mainly inserting random words and phrases, as that is deliberate. In the case of a page blank, however, I'd ask the user if they meant to do that, as editing sometimes glitches out and blanks out an entire section or page. 14:04, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with the page blank, since that has happened to me before. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 16:14, October 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * It also happened to me once. Usually for page blanking we use the bad edit warning (not necessarily vandalism) if it's for the first time, or simply ask the user about it. 16:42, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I'm down for this. It's pretty obvious when someone is just vandalizing to vandalize and while most seem to vandalize once and move on, I don't see the harm in automatically blocking those who AGF obviously doesn't apply. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 16:14, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

for obvious vandalism i guess, but if theres any hint that the user mightve not meant to do it or what they did is known to be a common glitch, like the page blanking as legos-rule mentioned, then they should receive a warning first. id definitely say users dont need more than one warning for it though. 18:29, October 3, 2015 (UTC)