Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Header

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Testt2b template is now a particular case of the *-n templates. (It corresponds with Test2a-n) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 On the side 2 Blast it! 3 Concensus on the AIV talk page 4 But it's not ALWAYS wrong to report without warning, is it? 5 Proposal

[edit] On the side

The alignment of the template to the left really makes all the alerts crowded IMO. It was really easy to follow with all the alerts below. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The solution is to make the banner less wordy and giving it less width then. As it stands, at least for me and some people who check it every once on a while, it's annoyiing having to scroll just to check for new notices -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

also,, the main thing on the page are the alerts, not the big green banner that one reads once and nver pays attention anymore. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I liked the old one better, the squished reports are harder to read and work with. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blast it!

Protected again!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.174.238 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Concensus on the AIV talk page

According to concensus on the AIV talk page, I'm about to make some slight changes to make it clear that "username is a blatant violation of policey" is not good enough when report to AIV. If there are any problems with this change then please AGF and revert it, but keep in mind that I've had no objections to this on the AIV talk page. SGGH 10:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] But it's not ALWAYS wrong to report without warning, is it?

I'm wondering about the bit in the header where it says to administrators: "If users make an invalid report, consider letting them know using template {{uw-aiv}}." I think there are cases where it is appropriate to report vandalism immediately without giving a warning — for example if the new vandal account or IP is an obvious sockpuppet of one that was blocked a few minutes before for exactly the same vandalism, or if the vandalism is particularly egregious. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions that a brand new account vandalises Jimbo's user page, and is blocked immediately, without warning. The kind of vandal is on a completely different level from the kind that just inserts "Hi John" into an article, and might even self-revert after seeing that the edit really did work.

I'd like to reword it to say something like "If users fail to give appropriate warning before reporting, consider letting them know using template {{uw-aiv}}." I think that allows for the possibility that it's not always inappropriate to report without warning, just as it's not always inappropriate to block without warning. The kind of vandalism that requires familiarity with Wikipedia (page moves, changing of images, etc.) indicates that the vandal is not really a clueless newbie. ElinorD (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of not paying attention to the level of warnings, but instead the types of edits made. If someone's first two edits are to blank or vandalize an admin's user or talk pages, screw the warnings, just ban them right then and there as a vandalism-only account (it's painfully easy to spot them sometimes). We're not a bureaucracy, and forcing people to go through a strict "level one through level four" warning process smacks of stupid. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Level 1 through 4 is actually useful a lot of the time though, and you don't need to use templates to do it. (good grief, there's so many!) I agree you should use common sense though. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I think this box should be more noticeable; so I am proposing an alternative (here). I think it will reduce the number of false reports. GDonato (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the slight wording changes, but the new color makes it more difficult to read. Something a little calmer would be nice. - auburnpilot talk 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted the background colour back to what it was. If anyone want's to play around with the colour I'm fine with that, but it has to be at least as easy to read as before. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)