User talk:BlueWren0123/sandbox

Please Slow Down
I know I've mentioned this at least once before (though it was a while ago), but please slow down with the block button. There is no need to block without warning for this routine disruptive editing, and it is absolutely overkill to be indeffing a registered account after only one disruptive edit without any warnings (I was literally in the process of leaving a welcomevandal on their talk when you blocked them). Unless the vandalism/disruption is egregious (i.e. racist rants, etc.) or unless the user is flooding the filter log with attempted vandalism, please always issue at least one warning before blocking. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for feedback. Please look both at the edits and filter logs. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the account in particular, unless something has been deleted, I see one single instance of vandalism (and a corresponding filter log hit). That's it. And the nature of the vandalism isn't particularly egregious either... run of the mill disruption. Not something that needs an immediate indef without warning. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am always happy to unblock upon a reasonable unblock request. Vandalism is "not Ok", I daily see missed reverts, months or even years after the edit. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that vandalism is "ok". The issue here is that you are being too hasty with blocking for vandalism. In the vast majority of cases users need to receive at least three, generally four, warnings before AIV will take action on a vandalism report. Baring exceptional circumstances, if a report from a non-admin to AIV would be declined on the basis of "not enough warnings", you shouldn't block unilaterally either. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know where this is coming from, but this advice is not a policy, and has long been abandoned. Please note that this is not my opinion, but a common WP:AIV practice. Further, you can find a similar message from Jimbo Wales (that obvious vandals should be blocked on sight) in his talk page archives. Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As an admin who patrols AIV, as well as edit filters, I think most of what Taking Out The Trash has written is inaccurate.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see reports to AIV declined on the basis of the user having not been given enough warnings all the time. The only cases when blocking without warning is appropriate is for egregious vandalism, like racism, or severe BLP issues, or other stuff like that. Routine run-of-the-mill disruption/blanking/whatever, should go through the warning series first. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please understand, that what you are saying is not a policy or even a guideline, but is a matter of choice for a given admin. Materialscientist (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All warnings are not on the vandal's talk page. They are often warned when they trip filters, explaining what the issue is with their edit. Admins will often review the logs in addition to the talk page. The idea that a vandal has to go through all stages of warnings 1 - 4 is outdated.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They absolutely do not need four warnings but even in this day and age I don't think a lot of people realise that their changes will go live immediately so in general they should be told "yes, that worked, please don't do it again", then "that's disruptive and we'll block you if you carry on". I count the edit filter warnings towards this. Hate speech, libel, etc, should be met with an immediate block. I agree with TOTT that the block of the account was premature and would have been declined at AIV. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 08:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Many times you take the appropriate action. Many times you act so rapidly and without clear explanation. A few weeks ago there was a recommendation made to you to explain more when you revert. Recently you have criticized an editor for not explaining their edit, because you wrote, even editors of long standing do that.
 * The rapid aspect of your activity is what has been mentioned. Please Slow Down. BlueWren0123 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have substantive examples of a problem, present them. Otherwise, please gain some experience before waving your hands. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please quantify the level of experience required before I am permitted to express a view.
 * The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five "pillars":
 * WP:5P4 Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility.
 * Do I need your permission to 'wave my hands'. Are only Administrators who have been around for years allowed to speak? BlueWren0123 (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Taking Out The Trash: There are at least two reasons reports at AIV are declined when the user has not been properly warned. First is the minor issue that patrolling a noticeboard like that is mind-numbing in that it goes on forever and ever. That means an admin might want to spend a minimum amount of time considering each report and if there are no warnings it is simplest to just reject the report. Second is the big point that Wikipedia relies on empowering everyone to at least some degree and dealing with bad edits by referring everything to an admin is not scalable. Non-admins should take on a fair bit of the burden and try to explain procedures to new editors in the hope that some of them are just trying things out and will settle down. So, an admin might decline an AIV report because not all the boxes have been ticked by the reporting editor because the burden needs to be shared. However, if that same admin encounters an obviously bad editor, the admin might just indef them without any fanfare because the admin has seen the story countless times and understands when warnings are a waste of time. For another example of how the times change, ten years ago editors were strongly discouraged from reverting misguided comments or edit requests on talk pages. Now, it is very common for those comments to be rolled back without thought because the incoming nonsense would otherwise be overwhelming. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, we do block on sight obvious, and especially returning vandals/spammers, but we (at least I) do go through all 3-4 levels of warning when the editor does not mean to do harm, and does it per ignorance. Such editors are often not blocked at AIV, and even if blocked, the block duration is minimal. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

None of this sufficiently explains why it was acceptable/appropriate to indef the user account linked above after one single non-egregious disruptive edit that didn't even trigger any filter warnings, let alone without any talk page warnings (as I noted, the account was blocked while I was in the middle of leaving a welcome-vandal template). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Because patrolling AIV requires thousands of judgment calls, and a block for vandalizing the name of a sports ball player is a reasonable judgement based on having seen hundreds of similar editors contribute that behavior. The purpose of blocking is to prevent disruption. There's no rule, or even common practice, to wait until a requisite amount of disruption has occurred.
 * They're have been times where I've left a warning as Materialscientist blocked, and also times where as I blocked they had left a warning. Each admin that patrols AIV, UAA, and filter logs makes these judgment calls thousands of times, and you've provided a couple examples of blocks you don't agree with due to lack of warnings, not because the edits in question were not disruptive. I don't see an issue here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please relate your views to wp:aiv where it states:
 * Important! Please remember the following:
 * 2. Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior.
 * Is it possible that what you say is wp:or? BlueWren0123 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OR is a content policy and doesn't apply. My view is based on my experience of patrolling AIV and UAA and having made thousands of blocks based on the reports. Materialscientist has made degrees of magnitude more blocks than have, and you're concerned about how many? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . The AIV process guidelines tell non-administrators how to best file something that an administrator can action quickly. For the actual policy in play here: see WP:VAND. For example, the policy says "warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually block only when multiple warnings have been issued)". WP:OR has no bearing here, as it applies to article content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a reason for existence of that green poster at AIV - many editors file a report there, while they should have used other means and venues. Materialscientist (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that or is directed to article content. I intended to show an approach being taken and just used it as an abbreviation. All of this is getting away from the original point which is
 * Please Slow Down.
 * Materialscientist does much that is valuable.
 * Taking Out The Trash is asking for Please Slow Down.
 * Both can be true. BlueWren0123 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, I have also found myself feeling concerned before about blocks after a single (non-egregious) edit - mainly out of a worry for biting. I also appreciate, though, that administrators have a judgement call to make whenever they come across an account that’s made such an edit/such edits. I find myself wondering if this subject would benefit from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy or somewhere similar. All the best, user: A smart kitten meow  06:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've unblocked the discussed user (Kotv22). Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I support and agree with your rationale for many of your blocks. I had/have not looked at your reasoning for Kotv22. Many editors do not require 4 warnings before a block. It depends. Life is complicated. An editor may just insert a random combination of characters and just demonstrate immaturity. Another may insert offensive edits. Another may threaten. In my opinion these should be responded to in a different manner. The experience of an admin to assess the appropriate response is invaluable. When the response appears almost automated, I am concerned. Are the barbarians at the gates? BlueWren0123 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are barbarians at all the gates, halfway up the walls, tunneling under the ground, and catapulting over the parapets. Many are already inside the city. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. And "many" likely means "many tens of thousands" (depending on degree of vandalism/spam). They (their edits that we missed) hide behind millions of our articles. Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It may have been unwise of me to add the last sentence as I intended the rest of the comment to have more weight. In my mind the process of an admin considering their actions rather than an almost automated response is the more significant point. BlueWren0123 (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The barbarians will always be at the gates. Vandalism is a fact of life. Just as there has been graffiti for as long as there have been surfaces to deface, there will be unhelpful edits for as long as anyone can edit Wikipedia. Most vandals aren't malicious, they're bored or they want to vent their opinion on something they read on the Internet. Many will go away if we tell them they're being disruptive. We shouldn't get into a siege mentality. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I love those vandals who return and revert their edits. Most of them don't. And we don't (notice those edits). That's the problem .. Materialscientist (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)