Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:188:1:aea0:9825:2a41:2ece:e32b (talk) at 03:12, 12 September 2016 (User-reported: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 8 years ago by 2601:188:1:AEA0:9825:2A41:2ECE:E32B in topic Reports
    Report active, obvious, and persistent vandals and spammers here.

    Before reporting, read the spam and vandalism pages, as well as the AIV guide. To submit, edit this page and follow the instructions at the top of the "User-reported" section. For other issues, file a request for administrator attention.

    Important!
    1. The edits of the user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam.
    2. Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s).
    3. The warning(s) must have been given recently and there must be reasonable grounds to believe the user(s) will further disrupt the site in the immediate future.
    4. If you decide that a report should be filed place the following template at the bottom of the User-reported section:
      • * {{Vandal|Example user or IP}} Your concise reason (e.g. vandalised past 4th warning). ~~~~
    5. Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
    6. Reports of sockpuppetry should be made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations unless the connection between the accounts is obvious and disruption is recent and ongoing.
    This noticeboard can grow and become backlogged. Stale reports are automatically cleared by MDanielsBot after 4–8 hours with no action.
    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    This page was last updated at 07:05 on 11 November 2024 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.



    Reports

    User-reported

    • @Winkelvi: Declined for the moment. The user was not issued a final warning, nor given any transparent notice about what was wrong with the edit. I have remedied this by issuing such a warning. If the user adds back the material, a block would then be appropriate (so post here again if that occurs). And if not, this should be removed after some time passes and it does not occur. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
    See definition of vandalism. Good faith edits which you disagree with are not it. I see no contribution from you on the talk page.82.132.230.194 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
      This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
      No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
      User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
      Page deleted. NeilN talk to me 00:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
      User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. NeilN talk to me 00:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
      No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. NeilN talk to me 01:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
      User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. NeilN talk to me 01:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply