Forum:Regarding vandals

Forums: Index → War Room → 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. Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 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. User:RainingPain17 - talk 08:48, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I did think of that at some point; I don't have anything against this idea. Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 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. RisingSun2024 ^{(Talk Page 🎌 Blog Posts 🎌 Contributions 🎌 Social Activity)} 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? Raven's wing ^Talk10:08, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for blatant vandals only. Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 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) -- laagone ^(talk)  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.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

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. http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/276/1/2/bionicle__unity_duty_destiny_by_cyberpictures-d6p3li2.pngLegos-Rule-15 ^Talk 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. Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 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. RisingSun2024 ^{(Talk Page 🎌 Blog Posts 🎌 Contributions 🎌 Social Activity)} 18:29, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism, as has been mentioned elsewhere, warrants an instant block regardless. However, like Legos says, potential for an error or Wikia being at fault should be treated differently. In most cases though, if the user is one who will contribute, then they will protest the block and if they do it civilly then there should be no problem. So yeah, instant block but with grounds for appeal would be optimal, even if most vandals just strike once. YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK  14:50, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Rising, not Legos YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK  14:51, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Now regarding the talk page warnings, I'd like to read more of your opinions of whether you believe they are needed or not. One possibility could be to mostly avoid using them when it's blatant vandalism (such as that edit), since having several warning posted could sometimes be a part of their disruption, and is usually ineffective. Something that came to my attention regarding this point is this. Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 16:14, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's only needed after some bad edit warnings or something to showcase an escalation of the issue. I literally see no reason in telling someone "That's vandalism" when they've done nothing more than replace every other word with "Penis" or something.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

17:36, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Same here. When someones fills a page with "ur mom" words every sentence, they know well it's vandalism. They don't need us to tell them "oh it's vandalism it's bad you're gonna get blocked". User:RainingPain17 - talk 17:53, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that maybe notifying them on their talk page that they've been blocked can be avoided as well. Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 18:48, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

i agree with this idea of not warning them if its blatant, and not warning them about the block either. RisingSun2024 ^{(Talk Page 🎌 Blog Posts 🎌 Contributions 🎌 Social Activity)} 22:10, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

The warnings should be able to be used with discretion. If there's some vandalism that's clearly from some misguided kid, then you could send a talk page message warning them about it first. If it's someone who's intent on causing disruption and they've done a few vandalism edits in a row, then it would be okay to block with a standard block length immediately. Different situations can lead to different action being taken.      15:25, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 22:36, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

100% agree with what most people are saying here. Posting on users talk pages after they vandalize only gives them an invite to attack whoever issued the warning, and it would be nice to avoid this. If something is highly inappropriate for mainspace, an instablock seems perfectly justifiable. For smaller troll edits on the other hand, I have been personally going to a block if they vandalize anything after my initial revert. It would be nice to push away the vandalism templates as honestly they serve basically no purpose. http://i.imgur.com/4XBy83R.pngAntiScootaTwo^talk  01:03, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that, especially after this forum (based off of the way it's going), the vandalism template should probably be retired since most exceptions would fall under the "Bad Edit" template warning. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 01:19, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

I would generally trust admin discretion here. Usually third-party disputes of immediate blocks are in cases of "bad editing" rather than vandalism. Sometimes warnings will do though if it's not a serial vandal, as it can serve to scare them off or make them pay attention in class. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:22, October 25, 2015 (UTC)