Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Latest comment: 5 minutes ago by IjonTichyIjonTichy 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 21:53 on 7 December 2024 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.



    Reports

    edit
    Possible to assume good faith, not convinced this is a block worthy case. PhilKnight (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User-reported

    edit
      Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. I don't see any vandalism. What I see is on the one hand an editor who evidently believes that being a runner up or a nominee for an award isn't enough of an honour to be included in listings, and on the other hand an editor who thinks it is, and who for some reason doesn't accept that anyone can in good faith believe otherwise. JBW (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am not the only one who is reverting them [[4]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply