Wikipedia talk:Abuse response/Archive 3

Page created in Article Space When Filling Out IP Vandalism Report

 * The following contrib has been reformatted into less confusing form. --Jerzy•t 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Background: Speedy deletion of 64.53.52.214

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged forspeedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this was posted here, since I'm the one who reported the vandalism from that IP address, not the one who created the page or carried out the vandalism. Geoff (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 64.53.52.214

You created the page in article space (where it does not belong); were you looking for User:64.53.52.214 instead?

--KurtRaschke (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Creation?


 * Wouldn't the creation of the article show in my contributions log or in the combined log for the deleted page? Neither shows creation of such an article by me. I didn't set out to create that page in article space and I don't know what I might have done to accidentally create it. All I did was use the link in the User talk:64.53.52.214 page to report the IP vandalism per the WHOIS tag that is at the top of the page. Did filling out that report create the article? If so, how? Sorry, I'm really nonplused.Geoff (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So, here I am:
 * If that's the case, then there's probably an issue with the form at WP:Abuse reports; it shouldn't be creating abuse reports in article space. I would suggest that you drop a note at WT:Abuse reports documenting your experience, and also call attention to the problem at WP:VPT and/or WP:AN. As for the log, deleted contributions are only visible to admins. KurtRaschke (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you examine what might have happened? I thought I filled out the report template per guidelines, but I might have done something which caused creation of an article. I just can't reconstruct how that might have happened.Thanks, Geoff(talk) 17:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above has elicited no response, and perhaps been justly ignored as a request too incoherently presented to deserve a response. But here's some clarification, if only for the benefit of us innocent bystanders:
 * Geoff is User:Glane23.
 * The contents of the box corresponds to content that may be seen in the last two secns of GL's talk page.
 * There is an entry, contrary to GL's insinuation (on the usertalk & inside the box), as the earliest of the deleted revisions of the misplaced non-article, reading
 * 15:02, 11 November 2008 . . Glane23 (talk | contribs | block) (794 bytes) (submitting new vandalism report for IP)
 * No edits to Abuse reports, capable of affecting a non-"cockpit problem" with the "form" or "text box", are apparent in the succeeding two months of the accompanying WP page's edit history, despite a number of apparently succesfully added new cases.
 * To this long-time editor (who is nonetheless unfamiliar with what the markup would do) the circumstances suggest a user who got beyond their depth and couldn't recognize that. But some reassurance that there are no traps lurking on the accompanying WP page would be, well, reassuring, even if there has been info "at WP:VPT and/or WP:AN". --Jerzy•t 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

70.245.235.46
I posted the block template, but it's not offical. This guy's gotta go. Jonathan321 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AIV would be a more appropriate place to list a user in this case, though even then I don't believe he/she merited a block by their rules. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse - deleting a reference tag
Never mind, my mistake. 71.135.171.188 (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispositioning a bad faith Abuse Report
Abuse reports/124.129.63.162 was created by on April 10. He and I were involved in an edit war at the time at Language Proficiency Index and it seemed he was forum-shopping to air his gripe against me. Long story short, he ended up going to ANI, got blocked for 31 hours, and hasn't been back since. My guess is he didn't fill out this AbRep correctly, so it's been lingering unnoticed since then. I've never been to this end of Wikipedia before, so I need help on the proper disposition of this. KuyaBriBri Talk 14:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged CSD#g6 (housekeeping)-- Terrillja talk  15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Listing the assigned contactor
I think, as a case is moved from "completed investigation" to "contactor assigned", the contactor should be listed in plain form on the page. This would give an easy visual overview of who's doing which contacting and would let us more easily jump in if a particular contactor has gone belly up for the last several months. Accordingly, as I've just moved a case from investigated to contacting, I've put my name by it in plain sight.Banaticus (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Clean up & professionalization
Looking at the posts and reports being processed and handled, I think it's time to clean up and relaunch Abuse Reports. I'm going to do some work around Abuse Reports to make it easier to use and make it a more efficient process.


 * Make Abuse Reports more active, so that reports are filed more often.
 * Create contact templates that volunteers may use to contact responsible organizations.
 * Clean up the main page. Finished.
 * General changes that are designed to make Abuse Reports more professional and efficient.

Feel free to contact me to help out in the process, and thanks to all the abuse report volunteers! Netalarm 11:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I've attempted to recontact the responsible organizations (and none of them replied), I'm going to move them to the completed request section. Although some organizations did not reply, the autoreply stated that every abuse report will be looked at and action take as deemed necessary. This move is long overdue, and by doing this I hope to effectively get rid of the backlog at Abuse reports. Netalarm  15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Closed/Actioned Archive Problem

 * Abuse reports/Closed (I moved from /Actioned) More specifically: Abuse_reports/Actioned/Archive_1
 * Abuse reports/CompletedArchive

Appears as though these are duplicative? I'm not sure what to do with these. bsmithme   06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are. CompletedArchive is a manually created list of all reports that have been completed. Users have to move the link to the completed report to that page themselves (or in the future - bot). Closed, which was previously Actioned, was automatically maintained by the bot. It would move all reports that had the actioned tag. I found that a lot of the reports never used the actioned tag, so it's an incomplete list. CompletedArchive is the most complete list we have, but the orphaned reports are still left out. We could either keep the action logs, or just delete them. It doesn't make that much of a difference, since CompletedArchive still has them. If we do delete, we can move CompletedArchive to Closed. I've created a diagram for the process, I'll send it to you once you get online. Netalarm   talk  00:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking for clarity's sake, they should all just be in the same archive--we have WAY too many loose ends in Abuse Reports.       bsmithme    20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's just archive all past reports, and then start a new unified archived system. Netalarm   talk  21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely.      bsmithme    21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:AbRep
I've made some changes to the new template, mainly setting all headings to level 3. It still looks too complicated, with a few redundant fields. I'll go ahead and try to make it more "user friendly". Could you take a look at merging Investigator with Contactor? Netalarm  talk  03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree... the changes I made definitely weren't intended to be end-all. I was looking at it and realized it seemed kind of clunky.  We'll get there eventually.  I'll take a look at that.        bsmithme    20:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)