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 04:37 on 12 August 2024 (UTC). if it is out of date.

Alerts

Bot-reported

• 2603:6010:9509:b300:299c:5031:584b:1719 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · 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) 00:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Warned user. Level II. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User-reported

• EARL OF CLARE ARTICLE - A month ago I added valid but controversial information to the Earl of Clare site. It was based on good sources, medieval chroniclers, including a clerk to Henry II, a more modern source such as the Dictionary of American Biography. A short time later Lindsay came along and without offering any further sources, simply reverted my considerable contribution. Than he got his friend to team up against me as well almost 24 hours per day. The Page was protected at my requested and during that time the WikiProject for Royalty and Nobility put on a tag that they support the site, at least that was my understanding of the tag. A discussion began. I tried at first to reason with my considerable historical knowledge. They simply said their was no proof (of the medieval earls) and considered my evidence of medieval chroniclers and the more recent DNB as "nothing" and called it "original research". That is the first time I have ever heard prime sources and respectable later sources as "original research". They then went after my style, which was admittedly poor. I finally decided (because I could not take the unpleasantness any longer) to shorten the article on the medieval earls to one paragraph, feeling that would be a fair and balanced alternative. They still reverted, warning that I was a vandal when it was they all along who were reverted My work without putting in one word themselves. I received one good piece of advice from Ealdgyth and I was pursuing through some academics I know in the UK while Lindsay and Marmaduke continued to revert my one alternate point of view paragraph. They insult me, yet they have never contributed to the article at any time. Lindsay has made fun of me on his talk page as Crazy Clare though he denies it you can find it easy enough. I have sought the advice of two PhD's in medieval history which they scoff at. Lindsay has now put several of my words in one place on the discussion page to make it look like I have been continuing harassing me. When I noticed the difference in the page, I looked at the history section and saw when I tried "the information was deleted . . ." while he gave a false reason for his edits and deletes. True, I am new to Wiki, I know when someone is manipulating to make another look bad. He did this soon after I warned I had gone to the Mediation Committee. I am a serious researcher and have made good faith attempts to get the opinions of other members who have an interest in medieval subjects but some are not available at this time. I honestly contacted two PhD's in Medieval History in the UK and received one opinion in the affirmative, (A signor of the Magna Carta as The Earl of Clare) being a prime source - and the other who is at Oxford has not yet gotten back to me. I think I have shown enough research to at least represent an alternative point of view of the history of the medieval earls of clare. These two men have no background in medieval research and in fact Marmaduke states on his page that he has no real interest in history. They are both vandals or trolls and really do not care if one of the Medieval Earls themselves came back in the flesh. They would still use their reasons which by the very nature of them shows they do not have any idea of medieval history other than some modern book they quote, but do not quote chapter and verse so I have an idea of what this book even states. I tell you all of this because I have given concession after concession to them, shrinking my large article down to one paragraph, the second paragraph (if it has not already been reverted again, and still they harass me and revert even this small paragraph which I put in for the purpose of a fair and balanced view. I have promised a descendant of the medieval clare family, with whom I have shared my research, who also has a doctorate, although I do not know in what, that I would try to keep at least a mention of the alternate point of view concerning the medieval earls. I think if you would read a careful history on the discussion page from the very beginning you will see that I have tried to work and compromise in good faith as Beetlebrox suggested - but all these two men I mentioned is complete capitulation. The tragedy is that they could not care less for the truth or they would have surely agreed to one small paragraph which was sourced well and backed up by at least one Phd. I know this is too long and I apologize. I do not know what else to do. I think they are both vandals or trolls, especially Lindsay with his editing manipulations and both he and Marmadule with their sarcasim that eventually makes me want to lose my cool. After they reverted my one paragraph with the alternative point of view, in itself to me a great compromise, they started all over again reverted even that paragraph, ignoring my advice and sources, calling them, including the source-based opinions of PhD Medieval Scholars, of all things, original research. I just lost it. Please help. Thankyou Mugginsx (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• 24.126.134.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). IP keeps vandalizing the Reception section of the Pandorum article; keeps changing it to state that the reviews are mixed among critics, when, as the sources show, the reviews have not been mixed (a few good reviews from a few critics does not make the film mixed among critics in general). We go by sources here. This IP has been warned by more than just me, reverted by more than just me, and yet still continues to insert what he or she feels the section should state based on his or her own personal feelings (as witnessed before by the addition of his or her own critical commentary of the film). Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • For any administrator feeling that this is a simple content dispute, I point out that it is not. The IP is changing information away from what the sources say. Maybe I should have made this report shorter, but I wanted to give a good report, in case it was seen as a simple disagreement. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• 24.19.12.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Adrián Beltré;. I am reporting this user because I suspect that this may be a vandalism only account. . 5 albert square (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: User is in the category: Shared IP addresses. HBC AIV helperbot3 (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn Reverts by Loonymonkey

I have told the user Loonymonkey, at the Anita Dunn page, to stop erasing her full quote and he continues to do it without reason, and with no valid argument and several, in my opinion, bad arguments. He wanted her full response, which had been taken out by someone else, so after I realized my revert was taking part of it out I included it for him and hoped we now had settled the issue even though taking out part of her response wouldn't then justify taking out her quote on the subject of Mao, but even then he reverted and took out her quote again. I'm tired of correcting it and I believe now he is just trying to censor what she is actually quoted by the source saying on the exact topic that the section is on i.e., Mao. He has even stated that he believes her response to her speech to be more relevant or important then her speech which I find highly illogical. Thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory