Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
1 IP left. rm Cunningly (blocked indef by Materialscientist (ACB)).
Line 27: Line 27:
::{{nao}} Well, there's probably a reason that an admin isn't taking action (likely because it isn't ''obvious'' vandalism) [[WP:ANI|ANI]] is thataway... [[Special:Contributions/172.58.40.242|172.58.40.242]] ([[User talk:172.58.40.242|talk]]) 04:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
::{{nao}} Well, there's probably a reason that an admin isn't taking action (likely because it isn't ''obvious'' vandalism) [[WP:ANI|ANI]] is thataway... [[Special:Contributions/172.58.40.242|172.58.40.242]] ([[User talk:172.58.40.242|talk]]) 04:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I suppose you're right. I tried this at ANI months ago, to no avail. So funk it. Feel free to remove the report. The inability or unwillingness to monitor such activity is a flaw of the project. But my takeaway is that our guidelines re: sourced content are less than meaningless. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:1:AEA0:587E:8905:7942:88F3|2601:188:1:AEA0:587E:8905:7942:88F3]] ([[User talk:2601:188:1:AEA0:587E:8905:7942:88F3|talk]]) 04:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
:::I suppose you're right. I tried this at ANI months ago, to no avail. So funk it. Feel free to remove the report. The inability or unwillingness to monitor such activity is a flaw of the project. But my takeaway is that our guidelines re: sourced content are less than meaningless. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:1:AEA0:587E:8905:7942:88F3|2601:188:1:AEA0:587E:8905:7942:88F3]] ([[User talk:2601:188:1:AEA0:587E:8905:7942:88F3|talk]]) 04:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
::::If they're using multiple IP's than a block wouldn't necessarily rectify the issue, since they could "easily" switch to another one. Maybe [[WP:RFPP]] for some of the articles? [[Special:Contributions/172.58.40.242|172.58.40.242]] ([[User talk:172.58.40.242|talk]]) 04:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:45, 2 February 2017

    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 16:19 on 27 July 2024 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.




    Reports

    User-reported

    (Non-administrator comment) Well, there's probably a reason that an admin isn't taking action (likely because it isn't obvious vandalism) ANI is thataway... 172.58.40.242 (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you're right. I tried this at ANI months ago, to no avail. So funk it. Feel free to remove the report. The inability or unwillingness to monitor such activity is a flaw of the project. But my takeaway is that our guidelines re: sourced content are less than meaningless. 2601:188:1:AEA0:587E:8905:7942:88F3 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're using multiple IP's than a block wouldn't necessarily rectify the issue, since they could "easily" switch to another one. Maybe WP:RFPP for some of the articles? 172.58.40.242 (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]