Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m 1 user left. rm 202.45.119.48 (blocked 3 months by Materialscientist (AO ACB)). |
→User-reported: not vandalism. |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:{{AIV|n}} I'm not sure I'd count that last edit to the user page as vandalism. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
:{{AIV|n}} I'm not sure I'd count that last edit to the user page as vandalism. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::This is the edit I was reporting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_%28season_4%29&action=historysubmit&diff=442421226&oldid=442369745]. The user page edit came later. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
::This is the edit I was reporting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_%28season_4%29&action=historysubmit&diff=442421226&oldid=442369745]. The user page edit came later. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::{{AIV|nv}} These all appear to be good-faith edits to me; I'm not saying they are perfect, or that they shouldn't be reverted, but I cannot see where this users editing is vandalism, and not simply good faith but poorly guided editing. This comes off more as a noob being [[WP:BITE|bitten]] than someone trying to intentionally mess up articles just to mess them up. [[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 03:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:17, 1 August 2011
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!
|
This page was last updated at 22:56 on 20 May 2024 (UTC).
if it is out of date.
Alerts
Bot-reported
- 2605:b100:b24:f18c:f153:6e9b:c3c3:8f3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Probably not vandalism. But I left a note about edit summaries. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- 2a02:14f:1fe:682b:5775:ff87:9c50:7f0c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 926 (Image vandalism II, details). Note: Please carefully consider context before blocking. Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
- CoolZoog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism after final warningGeraldo Perez (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I'm not sure I'd count that last edit to the user page as vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is the edit I was reporting [1]. The user page edit came later. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. These all appear to be good-faith edits to me; I'm not saying they are perfect, or that they shouldn't be reverted, but I cannot see where this users editing is vandalism, and not simply good faith but poorly guided editing. This comes off more as a noob being bitten than someone trying to intentionally mess up articles just to mess them up. Jayron32 03:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is the edit I was reporting [1]. The user page edit came later. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)