Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism
This is not the page for reporting vandalism. The page to report persistent vandalism is at Administrator intervention against vandalism. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
AIV helperbot information The HBC AIV helperbot5 assists with the management of vandalism reports. Edit the following parameters in the page header to control the bot's behavior:
|
Counter-Vandalism Unit | ||||
|
Unstoppable vandal
Hi!
I have to report that some user keeps posting a vandalism on page for Angelina Ballerina The Next Steps. (S)he won't give up.
Since you are admin, could you deal with them? I heard that (s)he's an anonymous user, so I don't know if we can block him/her.
Vandalism is so feeding me up.
Thanks in advance! ~~178.149.47.172~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.47.182 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Please help. They are still above giving up. ~~178.149.47.172.178.149.47.182 (talk)
Suggestion for page structure improvement
Is there merit in restructuring this page so that each reported incident is its own subsection? Doing so would make it far quicker and easier to click the relevant link to 'edit source' for that individual entry, and then to mark the response. I find myself continually having to wade through lots and lots of of markup to find the specific entry I want to respond to. If each entry were a separate, editable subsection, the task would be easier to process.
I don't know how this could be achieved technically but, in its current form, I find myself reluctant to make more than three or four edits in a row, as each one is such a faff to process. This is especially true of bot-reported issues, as so many of them require no action, yet finding the right line of text to edit is a real pain, and I often can't be bothered. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- This would involve reprogramming the bots for what that is worth. Honestly my opinion is that it is okay as is but I don't oppose changes. I am a bit busy these days to reprogram the bot though so someone else comfortable with the code would have to do it. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 08:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Synchronized vandalization of Montenegrin articles
Hello, there are certain usernames that are vandalising Montenegrin articles. They are rewriting Montenegrin language tag "cnr" with "sr" or 'srp' (Serbian language) tag at the beginning of every Montenegro-related article (Geography, people, events, etc.) (e.g. Podgorica, Cetinje, Dušan Matković, Ulcinj, Tivat, Milo Đukanović, etc.). The only official language in Montenegro is Montenegrin, while Cyrillic and Latin scripts are both valid. Serbian is co-official at the local level, along with other minority languages (Bosnian, Albanian, Croatian)
Can you please check bot behaviour of the following users:
- User:Balkan_Emperor
- 70.31.33.5 see Special:Contributions/70.31.33.5 , here is shown how he purposely vandalizes CNR tags.
- User:WalterII
there are several more, will be listed here --Navyworth (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
{{Redirect|WP:VIP|the Voice Intro Project|Wikipedia:Voice intro project}}
I have removed a {{redirect}} notice for the shortcut WP:VIP from the very top of AIV. It adds unnecessary clutter to a page that requires simple, clear instructions; they're already ignored as a wall of text too often. Adding such templates would probably worsen the problem. If the redirect WP:VIP is too ambiguous, you may like to convert it to a disambiguation page (similar to WP:CU). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Remove globally blocked users from AIV
Is there a way for the bots to pick up globally blocked users? For example, User talk:73.91.226.18 was blocked globally but the report sat on the page for a while afterward. SpencerT•C 06:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Outrageously false accusation - what can be done?
A user has posted here claiming that my "actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account". My actions indicate nothing of the sort. None of my edits even remotely resemble vandalism. I find it absolutely outrageous to be subject to this malicious and utterly unfounded allegation. Firstly I trust that the malicious report will be ignored. Secondly, I hope that the user will at the very least be strongly warned not to make spurious reports of vandalism. However, looking at their contributions, I think it very unlikely that I am the only person they have maliciously accused. So can some stronger action be taken? Zqzkqzq (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looking further into the account that maliciously accused me, it is strange indeed. It was registered in 2012 ([1]), but only made its first edit in 2016 ([2]). Then it made just eight edits over the next five years, all to user talk pages ([3]). Then, a couple of weeks ago it resumed editing, and starting from two days ago it began prolifically reverting edits and templating users. I do not see any edits that are anything except reverts and templates. It seems to me that this is all they want to do - revert and template - and they are doing so indiscriminately - see [4] for another instance. I think this user is causing major disruption and does not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. Zqzkqzq (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Zqzkqzq: Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. You also accused me of "disruptive editing", whilst, apparently, not understanding that Wikipedia is about the POV of reliable sources, such as Merriam-Webster. Kleuske (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that you reverted my edit purely because the previous editor reverted. You also falsely accused me of not explaining my edit. I find it troubling that you would follow the lead of a disruptive editor to attack me in this way. Zqzkqzq (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because I came across it, found the summary "rv disruptive editor" quite insufficient and the text you deleted informative and well sourced. Merriam-Webster is quite the reliable source. You have now accused two editors of "disruptive editing", whilst waging an edit war, failing to discuss proposed changes and throwing around accusations. That is not the way we do things around here. Kleuske (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion is about malicious accusations of vandalism and how to handle them. You may discuss the article's content on the article talk page if you have some genuine interest in the topic. Zqzkqzq (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because I came across it, found the summary "rv disruptive editor" quite insufficient and the text you deleted informative and well sourced. Merriam-Webster is quite the reliable source. You have now accused two editors of "disruptive editing", whilst waging an edit war, failing to discuss proposed changes and throwing around accusations. That is not the way we do things around here. Kleuske (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that you reverted my edit purely because the previous editor reverted. You also falsely accused me of not explaining my edit. I find it troubling that you would follow the lead of a disruptive editor to attack me in this way. Zqzkqzq (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Zqzkqzq: Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. You also accused me of "disruptive editing", whilst, apparently, not understanding that Wikipedia is about the POV of reliable sources, such as Merriam-Webster. Kleuske (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)