Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

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! The edits of the user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam. Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s). 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. 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). ~~~~ Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 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 12:05 on 12 November 2024 (UTC). if it is out of date.

Reports

Bot-reported

• 103.219.61.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 30 five times in the last 5 minutes (Large deletion from article by new editors, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• 41.128.134.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 260 five times in the last 5 minutes (Common vandal phrases, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• 83.136.92.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User-reported

• GeorgeLiddell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Chris Liddell: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account; account is being used only for promotional purposes. User has repeatedly removed sources, deleted categories and added unsourced material to a page that he CLEARLY has a WP:COI with. Chris Liddell. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: User is in the category: User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. I'll be watching for a bit.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: please see this for a CLEAR indication of their WP:COI. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  I saw, this user is clearly trying to be productive, so this would be a great opportunity to clear this up and introduce the user to WP:COI.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Eternought39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – user has not listened to various warnings to supply accurate accessdates and continues to add improper date formats and formatting to pages. Vandalism after final warning. Ss112 21:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@K6ka: They were previously blocked for disuptive editing. Blatantly disregarding talk-page notices to provide accurate information is disruptive and can be considered vandalism if they resume (which they have), as can supplying obviously false information (saying you accessed something days before you actually did). Ss112 21:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Danharman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – vandalism only account, including: 1 2 3 4 ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 21:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. After reviewing the account's edits, I see this user as an article subject who is genuinely worried about the state of her article (and is getting understandably frustrated in the process). Yunshui offered some advice on the user talk page, including advice to contact OTRS. I feel that a block for "vandalism-only account" would be unwarranted at this time (see also WP:BLPKIND). If there are other behavioral issues, I would take them to WP:ANI. Mz7 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:69 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user was automatically reported by huggle, please verify their contributions carefully, it may be a false positive DVdm (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)