Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

User:Sushar1

Filmography tables should not include films that are yet to begin shooting. But he keeps adding Thalapathy 63, a film which begins shooting only the coming January. My attempts to revert his edits are always undone. He even reverted my advice on his talkpage. Since I am not able to ARV him via Twinkle, I'm reporting him here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Done accordingly. Twinkle didn't work properly earlier, now it does so I successfully ARV'd him. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)#Reduce number of vandalism warning levels

Greeting. There is a proposal at Village pump(proposal) regarding Reduce number of vandalism warning levels which you might be interested to join the discussion. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Should I be reporting this here?

There is a user I've reported for vandalism here. On Wikipedia pages of boxers it is standard procedure to add flags of the boxers and flags of the location where the boxers have fought to their professional boxing record (which is a table). Here are some examples:

To find out the nationality and the rest of the information about the boxers, the website BoxRec is used. This user however has a personal issue with flagicons. He has a tendency to deliberate delete them (undo edits) every time. I had reported him here, but Home Lander removed my comment with the following statement, "rm non-actionable". If I shouldn't have reported him here, where should I report him? If I should have however, why wasn't any action taken? MrUnoDosTres (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution first. The final place of escalation of behavioural (as opposed to plain vandalism) issues is WP:ANI. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User as a victim of the Wikipedia system

Real-life example: user:WikiInspector42 many times removed templates like {fact}, {disputed} etc from article [1][2][3][4][5]. Recidivism. Warnings do not help (also as "last warning") [6]. I add case to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, however, the administrator's reaction was unacceptable. User:WikiInspector42 got a warning [7], I also [8], but the main point is that vandalism has not been removed. If the article has problems, every user have the right to add templates like {fact} etc to article. There is no doubt here. User:WikiInspector42 has no right to delete templates like {fact} or other added by other user without improving the article or/and consensus (the discussion is under way). Administrator do not distinguish between two things: there may be differences of opinion between the two users but no user can break the rules. If the user deletes the template of {fact} or other from article without correcting the problem or consensus [9], this is vandalism. The problem is that Wikipedia:Vandalism nothing writes about removing tags like {fact} or similar, and the administrator did not consider this as vandalism [10][11]. So, I am an experienced user (12 years on Wikipedia, 9 as registered user, about 30,000 editions in two Wikipedias and few other Wikimedia projects) and new user defeated me using stupid Wikipedia system and policy. Does this mean that everyone (even IP and new users) can remove tags from articles and experienced editors can not do anything because if reverted it more than twice, the administrator will not do anything except for the warning of both persons? I am slowly beginning to regret that I have devoted so much life to the Wikipedia. Does it have to be this way? Can not normally solve such a simple problem? The administrator can always restore the tags, block the article or user, ordinary editor is defenseless against the trolls and the administrator does not want to help. It's not just about this example, there are thousands of such problems. Does anyone have any ideas? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

On that article, which is entirely sourced to an RS (a UN database, unless otherwise stated), use of fact and dubious tags is wasting people's time. WikiInspector42 is absolutely right to remove those there. --Masem (t) 01:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No, is NOT entirely sourced to an RS (a UN database)... even I asked in the discussion to based on UN. In article often there are some controversial editions by very many users and edit-wars. The article is controversial, based on discussion data, some entries are absurd and part of data there are no sources. The article should be marked accordingly... until the repair or least some real suggestions in the discussion. Doubts can be given to any template in article (even {delete}), but they are there to use them. If you have a problem with this, please create a discussion about changes in use of templates. Now, in accordance with guidelines - if the article has problems, every user have the right to add templates like {fact} etc to article. User:WikiInspector42 has no right to delete templates like {fact} or other added by other user without improving the article or/and consensus. However, the discussion is not about the problems of this article. The problem is that how the user could deal with trolls? The administrator can always restore the tags (templates), block the article or user, ordinary editor is defenseless against the trolls and the administrator does not want to help. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 01:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the fundamental point of disagreement is whether this user is obviously trolling or not. The administrator didn't decline this report because they disagreed that the edits were unhelpful, but because they disagreed the edits were intentionally unhelpful, which is the definition of "vandalism" that this noticeboard uses. Your report would be better placed at a different noticeboard like WP:ANI, where the user could be given a chance to respond, and administrators could discuss what to do if they aren't sure. I know this may seem like pointless bureaucracy, but the idea is to restrict this noticeboard, WP:AIV, to the most obvious of cases (e.g. editors inserting curse words into articles). Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism and Indecent & Disgraceful username

Recently, at the India national football team, edit has been made by a certain user which are nothing but vandalisng the established article but more serious is his user name, which is very indecent, disgraceful and very offensive, kept as Land ka raja in hindi which literal meaning is king of c**ks/p**is. I don't know what appropriate steps can be taken against such users and their vandalism tendency and their disrespectful attictute. They surely making this wikipedia community, who honestly and selflessly provide information, face tough and unfriendly and negative and disgraceful moments. Please anyone who know how to stop such people from coming here and give a tight reposnse to such users, i think its very fine to not having such a user than having a ip user or someone who started wikipedia with very primary knowledge but want to learn positively and respectfully. Please someone take proper action. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reported to Users for administrator attention, where these issues should be placed in the future. Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Our guy returns

Hello again,

Both edits are vandalism. 92.86.49.157

He was previously warned but wasn't fully blocked. 92.86.36.1

He is editing first a foreign soccer player, in order to fully check his IP, then the Romanians... Christina (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS denialism

Boring fringe-opinion-inserting IP is back again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Already range-blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Loyola Jesuit College

I am reporting "The Banner" for vandalizing the Loyola Jesuit College page. The page initially had information of the school's campus and history but The Banner has frequently deleted citing advertisement. I referred him to the pages of prominent schools like Harvard telling him that campus information and history is essential to any school's wikipage particularly Loyola Jesuit where funding was a major issue to the school's starting. I have restored the edits but they are still under "pending changes". All major statements have been cited. Please restore the edits and block The banner from making any other further edits to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hypernerd387: See WP:NOTVAND. Go discuss the issue on the talk page, keeping in mind that The Banner is more familiar with site policies and guidelines than you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
In this edit you are making it loud en clear that promotion and advertising is the sole pupose of your editing in that article: I'm new at this so not sure how to send a direct message. I am NOT promoting Loyola Jesuit College. Funding is central to how LJC began and is definitely worth including in its history. This information is no way promotional. Prospective parents seek information about school facilities in deciding were to send their kids which is why this has always been included in the wiki page. How is any of this material promotional. Promotional will be saying "2 spacious athletic fields" rather than 2 athletic fields. This information would then be deemed subjective. Subjective material is promotional, objective material is not because these are facts. Plus Cowbell competition is the biggest science/math competition in Nigeria (as good as WAEC and JAMB), yet you deleted information about the school's performance. How is funding promotional? You do not get to decide what is promotional and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Copied from my talkpage.The Banner talk 20:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry! [12]. LightandDark2000 has some sign issue. Xain36 (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Xain36: It's alright, but why do you think they have a signature issue? You removed three reports, partially deleting LightandDark2000's signature, which, AFAIK, has nothing to do with their signature. —RainFall 08:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@RainFall: My Laptop went for repairing. So I am using Nokia C5-03, which is not compatible with LightandDark2000's signature. When I was going to publish my report, only half of edits saved and others are stuck for latest emojis/htmls code. Xain36 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

mistake

I inadvertently hit the rollback button, sorry if I messed anyone up. - Samf4u (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism is... obvious

People, PLEASE. For the love of all that is holy, don't report users who are simply doing things like edit warring, or even violating the three revert rule. These users are not vandals, and they don't belong here. Also, if a user is ignoring you, but not vandalizing pages, that makes them NOT a vandal. Rockstonetalk to me! 22:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Earlier today, User:BabbaQ made a spurious report here [13]. I have asked them why they did this, and they have aggressively refused to answer. What recourse is there when one is falsely accused of vandalism in this way? Can the user be warned a) not to make false accusations of vandalism and b) to respond politely when asked a polite question about their actions? 51.7.34.203 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been warned by both me and another user for harrassment. I say it again. Drop the stick.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked for a week. I will move on. I think this discussion can be considered closed. I thank you for swift action. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Freeze while looking at the edit history of the TB2 subpage

I was just looking at the history of the TB2 subpage for bot reporting, and after some time of scrolling, my tab just kept loading and basically froze. Fortunately, I was able to go to a new tab and things worked normally. But whenever I went to it (and I tried several times), it kept loading and I could not click on anything there. Has this happened to anyone else? Diamond Blizzard talk 22:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Happens to me all the time. But I edit on a mobile device. You are experiencing a cache overrun. You can adjust the number of entries that appear when you call a history page on Wikipedia, but basically it's a problem with your machine. Someone more tech savvy than I might know how to fix it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm on desktop. I'm not sure why this happened on that page only - I've actually seen the history of the main AIV page before and there weren't any problems. Diamond Blizzard talk 23:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Cergy

I’ve been trying to report the vandals on Cergy but it won’t let me report on AIV and my inquiries are going unanswered. 2600:1:92C2:8BFC:F134:C2A6:29B0:73F5 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Dlohcierekim has taken care of this. Geoffroi (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

False positive

The first entry under Bot reports is a false positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.22.138 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

World Neurosurgery

I am the Managing Editor of an Elsevier journal, World Neurosurgery. Our Wikipedia page had not been updated in years. Today I spent time updating, was happy with the results and published it....only to have someone by the name of Shoy revert all of my revisions 30 minutes later. What actions can be taken? Mangingeditorwns (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Your best bet is to open a discussion at Talk:World Neurosurgery and try to reach agreement on your proposed improvements. Some of the material you tried to add has a promotional tone, which we normally try to avoid. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hemant Debral and Hemanth Dx

I have noticed irregularities for which I have mentioned the user in the admin intervene. First I did not reported Hemant Debral, what he did in the Sunil Chhetri and List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri, is first did edits with false info. Which I reverted without saying anything as i wanted to give him a chance. But again he restored his false info in both the pages. But to my surprise, at the List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri another new account with similar name Hemanth Dx removing info at the article along with removing info at the India national football team, whcih seems like a SOCK PUPPET of the user Hemant Debral. Now even when I did not reported Hemant Debral rather Hemanth Dx, Hemant Debral is denying his vandal the articles at my talk page and dragging me to unnecessary controversy by reporting my account here. I don't know what he has to fear if he is clean. I only replied that only at my talk page. Dey subrata (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, and trying to correct an article, but the person who submitted false information keeps undoing my edits to reinstate their false information...

I honestly have no idea where I should go with this, and I’d really appreciate it if someone here could direct me to a mod or admin of some kind.

The user K.S.Morgan has been repeatedly adding the text “Will Graham (in TV series)” to the Hannibal Lecter article under the heading of Hannibal Lecter’s significant others. This is a common fan ship, but even in Bryan Fuller’s TV series, there is never any instance where they have been shown to be dating. The term significant other refers to an established relationship, not an ambiguous one.

I looked at their history, and it appears they’ve done this before. In March of 2018 they received a warning for “edit warring” for doing the exact same thing that they’re trying to do again now. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@VictimOfEntropy: This is the wrong page to report vandalism (the correct page is WP:AIV), but this appears to be a content disagreement rather than vandalism, anyway. I recommend opening up a discussion with the other editor on the article's talk page. Orville1974 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

9/11 joke

On the talk page about Janne Wirman, a user said he was an al-Qaeda member. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed the post. GABgab 23:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of this noticeboard

I've never made any edits that remotely resembled vandalism. And yet, fairly regularly, users post spurious reports against me here. It's an abuse of process, rooted in and enabled by discrimination against IP edits. Someone did this to me again just now, though withdrew their report after a few minutes, perhaps realising their error.

Is there a place to report misuse of this noticeboard? Or any mechanism to prevent its abuse? 37.152.231.66 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Admins who patrol the page are generally pretty good at spotting these sorts of reports. There are, currently, a few reports flagged as inappropriate for AIV. Whether those are abusive or simply a lack of understanding, I can't say (though I'd lean toward Hanlon's explanation).
If a particular user makes a habit of trying to abuse the system, WP:ANI is probably the place to go. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The IP is an incarnation of the community-banned Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Favonian (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please write to the administrator and tell him that he / she will be restoring the vandalism editorial. As you can see,[14] the article has been kept under discussion, but the administrator who does not accept it removes the article without discussing it.--62.212.234.103 (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't help with other Wikipedias. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way?

Is there a way to report an already blocked user for the purpose of removing talk page access if they are inappropriately using the talk page while blocked without the bot removing it from the list? VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 11:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure there's a single designated venue, these requests sometimes go to WP:ANI or WP:RFPP. Hut 8.5 20:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Where to report page move vandalism?

I work on the help desk a lot. We were asked how to deal with page move vandalism. I just tried to find a guideline for this and failed. Is WP:AIV the correct place for a non-admin to report page move vandalism? -Arch dude (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude: WP:AIV sounds good to me for small-scale move vandalism. If the page-move vandalism is sufficiently large-scale to cause significant clean-up problems, then it should be taken to WP:AN/I, where the big guns can be taken out to resolve the problem. -- The Anome (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Gibraltar

There was lots of vandalism by an editor using sock-puppet accounts at this article earlier (now resolved). Is there a way to notify other users that vandalism is occurring at a specific article (rather than by a specific editor/IP address)? Bellowhead678 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bellowhead678 in this kind of situation, you are best requesting page protection at WP:RFPP and opening a case at WP:SPI. Agent00x (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

Why did I get on here when I’m doing my job, anti vandalism. LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@LoganTheWatermelon: (1) You need to slow way down. If you truly are a new user, then you shouldn't just dive right into the deep end of anti-vandalism work. (2) You were reverting legitimate contributions like this. That is not okay. (3) We have a piece of software that goes triggers a bot to automatically report here whenever an account that is not yet autoconfirmed starts to rapidly revert other people's edits (regardless if they are justified or not). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

I want it to be unlocked so more people can report vandalizers.LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC) LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I know they're usually cluttered, but have a read of the top of the page ;) The page to report persistent vandalism is at Administrator intervention against vandalism - ChrisWar666 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about procedure re IPv6 reports

The instructions say warnings have to have been issued, and I have a case where no warnings have been issued, because it's an IP-hopping IPv6, so I'm not reporting this under #Reports, until I get clarification on procedure in a case like this.

So what is to be done, here? Should we just litter a whole bunch of IPv6 TPs they'll never return to with warnings? Not sure how to proceed. I've used the template above, just in case, but there hardly seems to be any point. The outcome I'm looking for here, is better guidance on this page the project page about what to do in cases like this; then, and only secondarily, attention to this particular case, assuming it is not premature due to the lack of any warnings.

Please see Special:Contributions/2409:4041:268C:96D1:D024:B3FF:FEC8:1939/32 for numerous, spammy or vandalism edits in the last two days, for example this or this, or not so minor vandalism, like this; about half of them to Indian topics, the other half not. And then there's the inscrutable TP comments, such as this. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, without any comment on the issue itself: Would you mind moving this to the talk page? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Originally placed in a new, H2 section "Questions", and moved here per request. Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Adjusted page reference after the move. Mathglot (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
An IP range like that can represent hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of different people. There's going to be some nonsense, and most admins aren't going to block that many people due to a bit of nonsense. The IP you've singled out does not even appear to be a vandal. Admins aren't always going to demand warnings in cases of IPv6 ranges, but they will look for a repeated (or egregious) pattern of abuse, including possibly some attempt to engage the user. Perhaps the advice at WP:IPHOPPER is of interest - basically try to engage single users in a single place. And if you can, also try to limit the range. The majority of IPv6 cases (but not on this range) can be limited to /64s. For complicated cases it might be worth going to ANI. This is kind of alluded to in the instructions. If there's too many details for dealing with edge cases in the instructions they can get too complicated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

170.235.201.113

This guy does nothing else in life, else vandalize wikipedia. There were many non-constructive editions, according his/her history. I undid some. A.WagnerC (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@A.WagnerC: Please report on WP:AIV; also no warning was provided to the user on their talk page, so there should not be a report there yet. Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mutya Buena

User 95.148.84.37 keeps adding untrue edits, under Mutya Buena discography, before someone else has already edited it under the same claims (Musichelper53), still untrue. Was banned before and has then returned with same pattern when it comes to editing the same articles. No other provided sources, enough edits? Dhoffryn (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, this is the talk page of AIV; future reports belong at the AIV project page here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

89.165.69.40 vandalized my content 6 times.

Thank you very muchMirhasanov (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Report of vandalism of senate of romania page whit putting oppsition as current senate goverment in romania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Romania page vandalism discoverd on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.221.118.59 (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible shortage of admin during certain times

Let me start off by saying that this is no means a criticism and hats off to all you admin that do such valuable work. I am merely concerned that during certain times (in my time zone between approx 06h00 and 13h00) there seems to be a shortage of admin patrolling these reports with the result that either many vandals continue unabated or, as has happened to me on the odd occasion, reports get archived due to inactivity. Are we possibly short of admin active during these hours? It seems once the US wakes up the issues are dealt with much quicker. Robvanvee 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You are talking about Central Africa Tim (UTC +2). I believe most are in the US. This is a time for the Europeans and Africans in nearby time zones to be more active. 6:00-13:00 CAT is 23:00 to 06:00 US/Canada East Coast Time (EST), so you will find less North Americans online. Not much we can do as Admins from NA. -- Alexf(talk) 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
While this may well be true, please note that some reports are seen and deliberately ignored (neither blocked nor removed) by administrators. This is the default action when the situation isn't entirely clear. A common reason for reports being ignored is probably WP:BLOCKP: The distinction between a necessary preventative block and an unnecessary punitive block is blurry, and administrators' opinions can widely differ about this topic. When an administrator does not find a block to be necessary, but assumes that others might think differently, the report stays until it is automatically removed. This is not a sign of a lack of active administrators, it is just a sign of caution. I sometimes manually clear the list of such reports before the bot does; others just wait multiple hours for the bot to do its job. A noticeboard full of stale reports is a sign that at least I personally have not seen the mess yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of article on Homeopathy

I'm Dr. Krishna Maitreya, MD (HOMOEOPATHY). I hear by bring to your notice the latest edit of article on Homoeopathy by Roxy, the dog, is thoroughly biased and duly based on articles that doesn't have sound scientific base. It is true that wide discussions are happening on the scientificity of Homoeopathy. Recent edit on wikipedia appears as if it declares Homoeopathy as Pseudoscience. If required, article can present a seperate heading or sublink about the various proofs showing it as Pseudosceince but it cannot change the entire article losing it's meaning. Please kindly the take necessary measures to restore the article from recent edits and lock it to prevent further damage. With regards. Dr Krishna Maitreya (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how this edit is disruptive. Regardless, if you have an issue with the content of the article, this is not the proper venue to discuss this; the proper venue is Talk:Homeopathy. --Kinu t/c 03:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Partial blocks clerking algorithm

At the moment, partially blocked users are immediately removed from the list. The header says:

Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as a bot automatically removes reports made here about accounts that are blocked.

This may no longer be a reasonable requirement if partially blocked users need to be urgently reported for vandalism. For example, a partial rangeblock should not cause a sitewide vandalism report about a specific IP address to be removed.

For HBC AIV helperbot5, perhaps we should introduce an algorithm to deal with partially blocked users:

  • If the last block log entry is newer than the report, remove the report. The partial block likely addresses the issue.
  • Else, add a comment: "The user is partially blocked."

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 100 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have run into this same issue a handful of times over the past few weeks. I've had to request a block directly to an admin on their talk page. Today I tried a manual, oddly-formatted report to AIV that the bot wouldn't recognize. Is there a solution to this issue? I'll go to ANI with these, but it seems more appropriate to find a way for AIV to handle them. Thanks, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 365 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing bump templates: Problem is being resolved. Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked editor still editing

2409:4070:200C:1477:8815:846C:90D8:5282 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is supposedly blocked until 25 December 2020, but managed to make 13 edits so far today (all false figures).
I added a report on the Project page, but HBC AIV helperbot5 immediately removed it, presumably because it says he is blocked, even though he is managing to make edits. - Arjayay (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a known bug; if a block is partial (e.g. this one is Wikipedia namespace only), the bot removes the new report even if disruption has switched to other pages. I've blocked this specific IP for a month; once that block expires, the year-long range block from WP space should still be in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This exact same issue is happening with other vandals too. CLCStudent (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for bot update

After two reports that had to be made on my talk page instead of AIV, I've invited CLCStudent to share their support above.

The issue is real; please fix the bot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: My apologies for the delay in response. A modification to the helperbot will be pushed shortly to resolve this issue. The bot will add a comment to the listing at AIV rather than removing the record altogether. — JamesR (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey JamesR, that's wonderful news. Welcome back, no worries, and thank you very much! 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 Completed — JamesR (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for deletion of my user account

As I wrote on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Micheledisaveriosp and [for the closure of the account|here] I am courtesy asking what I have to do in order to havre my acocunt being permanently blocked.

Just today 15 April 2020, I've done the same on my it.wikipedia's account. Some administrators asked me that I've to put my request in w:it:WP:RA and then I did it. The accpount is curretly blocked on it.wikipedia. Possibly, I also ask to delete the user talk page also on en.wikipedia. Best regards, Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It isn't possible to delete any account. It's required to keep the copyright of the articles you have contributed to straight. There are administrators that will block you, but why bother? Just make up a jumble of random letters, symbols and numbers; copy it to the clipboard and change your Wikipedia password to it. Then discard the copied password and sign out. John from Idegon (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Also see WP:DISAPPEAR. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Filter 1011 reporting to AIV/TB2

I've added 1011 (hist · log) back to DatBot's list. A word about that filter. It may have a very high false positive rate, unless I work out the issue mentioned in ALL CAPS at the end of the notes. But the true positives will be really obviously disruptive. See the contributions of the user linked in the notes. So if in doubt about any reports, no it's not some subtle vandalism that you're missing, and AGF. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I was about to remove the false positives with the following summary: "Suffusion of Yellow, I like the filter. Even its false positives." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Vendalism

Tbhotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has edited some inappropriate facts and information to a trusted figure with vandalism and it cannot be edited anymore so we are remained with false facts and informative details in our wikipedia page. Aloha31 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Also this isn't even the report page Ed6767 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Order

Is it just me, or is the User-Reported list order messed up? Hillelfrei talk 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Place for new users to report vandalism that doesn't rise to AIV level?

I'm thinking about writing a very very basic guide to reverting vandalism for new editors (much simpler than Help:Reverting), which will have one section about doing it yourself (encouraged) and one section about reporting it for anyone who doesn't feel confident enough to edit directly. Since most vandalism won't rise to AIV level, I was wondering, is there some more appropriate forum we should direct them to, or just use the Teahouse? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by vandalism that doesn't rise to AIV level. Do you mean when the vandal hasn't been warned up to level 4? In that case they should just move down the warning hierarchy. Or do you mean "low-level" vandalism that's been going on for a long time? They should probably get in contact with an admin or post on WP:ANI. Or do you mean a place where they can just report that vandalism happened and have someone else revert for them? Maybe we could set something up with the Counter-Vandalism Unit about it. bibliomaniac15 04:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bibliomaniac15: I mean the first and last. The idea is that there are a lot of people strongly in the WP:READER category who have never edited Wikipedia and wouldn't feel comfortable doing so, even if they come across obvious vandalism. A lot of us don't really relate to that perspective, given that we long ago learned to be bold, but it's still very much a thing. So if someone like that comes across vandalism, where should they post so that another editor can take care of it, ideally in a timely manner? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, WP:ANI. But we shouldn't tell people to do so instead of being bold; we should link to WP:BOLD instead. We shouldn't make it easy to be lazy and to let other volunteers do the work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Obvious vandalism" clause

Recently I listed here a person with persistent disruptive editing, but my listing was removed with the argument "not obvious vandalism".

The whole my wikipedia life I listed editors with 3 or more "uw-t"/"uw-v" warnings here. What is more the higher-level warnings explicitely say "Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Surname. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing."

Please explain what was the reason of the change of the statute of the page and where I have to request blocking for disruptive editing. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: This noticeboard has always been for "obvious vandalism" only. As far as I'm aware, the scope of this noticeboard has never changed—the reason this scope limitation is in place is because complaints about non-obvious "disruptive editing" frequently result in lengthy disagreements that can distract administrators from the cases that need the most urgent attention. It sounds to me like the vandalism that you reported simply wasn't as obvious to the reviewing administrator as it was to you. Nevertheless, to answer your question, if you believe that a user is editing disruptively, but their edits are not obvious vandalism, a general location to lodge that complaint would be WP:ANI. See also Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention for other noticeboards for more specific issues. I hope this information is helpful. Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thx. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism and spam editing

Filer blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks; wrong noticeboard (use WP:ANI if necessary) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to request administrator about disruptive editing and spamming of user "fire star of the heat".He is adding fake articles and also adding biased content.Whenever any user tried to correct the content he reverted back.So Thete is a something to be done to stop him for doing vandalism ,spamming .I hope you will understand my query and request and took some time to reach conclusion.According to me blocking him is good option.Rest is the choice of administrator Vansh stalin (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Users removing "stale" reports

Despite there already being a bot approved for this very task, we are still seeing non-admins removing good faith reports after only 30 minutes to an hour as "stale", and it's leading to some head-butting. I'm interested to know what exactly the wider consensus on this is. Is it acceptable? Is it not? Or only in certain circumstances? Sro23 (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is mostly a bad idea. If fact, I'd say even admins shouldn't be removing valid-at-the-time reports after 30 minutes. But as far as I can remember, no admin regularly does that. I think there are some acceptable times for a non-admin to remove a report:
  • Obvious trolling. But please report the reporter.
  • Removing your own report
  • Removing a blocked user, because the bot is lagging or down
This list is not exhaustive. But removing a report only because it is 30-60 minutes old is just plain wrong. Not every vandal is going to be continuously active; some vandals slip under the radar making one or two edits a day, or week, for months on end. In some cases (super-dynamic IPs), even 15 minutes might mean "stale", unless the admin is willing to make a rangeblock. But that judgement should be left to those with the block button. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, from what I can tell, the admin regulars here usually give the report at least a couple hours before clearing as stale, or leave it to the bot. Should two hours be the cut off? I can maybe see a vandal report added two hours ago as being stale. But 1 hour or less? Nah, I'd still consider that active. Sro23 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Removing a stale report early is in effect equivalent to declining it, and it feels slightly unhelpful to all for people without the technical ability to block the user if it is warranted, to be doing that investigation and making that judgement. If a report is a bit borderline, or the nature of the vandalism is somewhat subtle, it might simply take an hour or two for an admin with the time or the experience of this particular type of vandalism to come along and deal with it. We have a bot that clears actual stale reports after an agreed amount of time, and I don't think we need non-admins unilaterally deciding that time should be shorter. The incident last night where there actually was some filter activity that the non-admin couldn't see was a particularly clear negative case, but even in cases without technical issues like that it just doesn't feel like an area where it actually helps. ~ mazca talk 12:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
...equivalent to declining it: That really hits the nail on the head. If I make a report here, and want an administrator to at least look at it. I don't want a non-admin saying what amounts to "I can't block this user, but if I could, I wouldn't." I want a block, or an admin to say why they're choosing not to block. Otherwise, I've wasted my time. And if people view reporting to AIV as time-wasting, they won't report at all. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I think two hours is still a bit short, though it all depends on the history of the reported user or IP. Autoconfirmed vandals really need to be dealt with, no matter how long it takes. Some admins fell uncomfortable with rangeblocks (even /64 "ranges"), so any range report might take more time to get a response (though large ranges really should be taken to ANI). And sometimes; there just aren't any admins looking at the board. Every report might be perfectly valid and actionable, but no one has taken a look. We've settled on 4-6 hours for the bot; why change things? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Algerian authorities pay money for wiki vandalisers

Many algerian users on facebook have secret groupes i was in one of them and i have screens and proofs. They started what they call "The marathon" of vandalising history and pretending the ownership of some old traditions and costumes especially from tunisia and morocco .. this has to stop and you need to revise the sources they use. I sourced a historical book and it was deleted and an algerian editor sourced his blog and was proven . AL lpasd (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@AL lpasd: Looking at your contribution history, we can see your edits to date consist of:
If I was going to believe that there's a secret FB group out to vandalize articles, I would have to assume from your actions that you are a part of a Moroccan FB group and you're blaming Algerians for what you're doing. If you don't stop and find something else to do, this sort of behavior will get you blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No way all your articles are full of blogs and and untrusted source ..i can't understand why do you use wikipedia 24/7 with thousnads of edits if that was not for a real deal my friend ..by the way those were the first days of my account i didn't understand how to edit properly it's a bit complicated then. AL lpasd (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you know that there's this thing called reality, and that statements that aren't in line with it are false? I linked to your actions where you are linking to a blog and removing history books. You said you added history books and that someone else was adding a blog -- that makes you a liar. We're not expecting an apology, but if you keep lying, that's going to leave us no reason to trust you. And to lie when your actions are public record leaves us little reason to trust your capacity to edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Mandatory IP address masking incoming

Johan (WMF) has indicated that mandatory masking of the IP addresses of anonymous editors is being implemented for all Wikiprojects in the near-mid term (probably sometime in the next year or so), stating that this is an order from the WikiMedia Foundation's Legal Department. Apparently a statement from the Legal Department is forthcoming. As this is likely to hinder anti-vandalism efforts in the near-term, feedback is being requested to make this cause the least amount of disruption possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:V/RMV Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

The Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has been vandalized on 21 October 2020 by anonymous user 98.186.202.66, and further several times in the last week or so. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

An anonymous user is deleting the entire page or significant portions. wp:V/RMV sheridanford (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@SheridanFord: The removal was noticed almost immediately and undone one minute later by Drchriswilliams - see here, from the edit summaries it looks like the anonymous user might have been getting confused on their mobile app and did so accidentally, and it only happened on one occasion. Thanks for keeping a lookout. ~ mazca talk 10:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I made the same edit last week so someone is trying to mount a regular attack on the page for some reason. That's why I made the note. I saw the activity and was part of it. sheridanford (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Campeonata

How is vandalism when content and styles from other similar articles are in integrated into the series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.248.128 (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting revocation of talk page access

How do I request the revocation of a blocked user's own talk page access? I tried it by posting here on WP:AIV but the bot removed my request immediately based on the existence of the ordinary block. In this case my request was "On User talk:Sppadang:. Already blocked, continuing to make nonsense edits to his talk page. Suggesting access to it be removed.". Largoplazo (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Try contacting the blocking admin. Firestar464 (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Largoplazo and Firestar464, see #5 in the header, "Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as a bot automatically removes reports made here about accounts that are blocked." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Need a coordination group against Turkish/Azerbaijani vandalism

I get tired when so many pages in recently have been marred with a lot of mysterious and unknown IP addresses that I traced to be from Turkey and Azerbaijan promoting disinformation, distortion series to represent Turkey and Azerbaijan like innocent countries that defending the honors and truth while they have also done a lot of cruel things on non-Turkic people throughout the history. I don't know if Turkish/Azerbaijani governments involve or not, but I am certain these bots from Turkey and Azerbaijan are acting to rewrite history in every countries they come to their minds. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I found a problematic K-12 school IP range

Where is the best place to report 24.46.136.0/22 (whois) as a possible school netblock? The contribution history shows at least as many juvenile vandalism type edits as productive ones, at least for the past few months. I went back a few years an did some spot-checking and it's similar.

I'm not saying it should be blocked now, but it might be helpful if the entire /22 block were watched by an edit filter or bot.

If it is determined to be an educational institution, putting the usual "this is a school ip" template at the top of all 1024 user talk pages may be useful as well. Likewise, if it is a school, any wiki-blocks should probably be applied against the /22 netblock rather than one IP.

I asked for help on my user page, someone told me to come to ANI, but the instructions make it look like it's for urgent cases. There have been only 4 edits this month from that range, the 2 bad ones (well 3, but the 4th edit was a self-revert) handled through normal editing as far as I can tell. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Dec 31 2020: Apologies for multiple reports of SpectresWrath

I kept getting bizarre edit conflicts, in which my edit. appended to another edit, was in conflict with a third edit. This happened at least 3 times, resulting in about 3 identical reports.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As it turned out, none of those reports went through. Not sure what's happening here.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
AIV not taking new reports as of the past 45 min. REPORT: * SpectresWrath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Edit warring on the heels of a 1-week block for edit warring, then removed warning from Talk--Quisqualis (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Nationalistic vandalism

Ahmet Q. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Started deleting almost whole historically cited pages of Battle of Murino and Battle of Velika. He just decided to vandalise everything because he didnt like what he saw. Despite getting warned by 4 different users since 31. of December he persists even today. Please have this sortred out. Thanks in advance. Bellator9 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Velika attacks* Bellator9 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Velika attacks (1879)** Bellator9 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @El C: who is familiar with the situation and the new account which launched a report in its first edit.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ClueBot reporting after level 3 warning

I was just curious why ClueBot is reporting after a level 3 now. I don't have a huge problem with it - there is no need to robotically issue four warnings to everyone before blocking them - but it does seem to be a bit of a disconnect to have ClueBot report after a level 3, yet ostensibly (though not officially) require a human editor to wait for a level 4. Pinging Cobi. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it was unintentional side effect of this refactor of the warning logic back in 2019. Given it has been performing this way for over a year without complaint, unless there is consensus to change it back, I'm inclined to leave it as is. But it's not hard to switch back if that is what consensus is. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Like I said, I don't have my panties in too much of a twist over it, but I sometimes have to re-think what warnings I leave because of it - for most "normal" vandalism, I usually go with a three-warning system, which can sometimes cause an editor to be reported sooner than I expected, depending on which warning I felt like skipping. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

* Seriousgigi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello everybody,

there is a user called Seriousgigi who insists that Ugur Sahin has the Turkish citizenship although there are no sources. Furthermore he feels the urge to mention multiple times that his ethnicity is also turkish.

It would be lovely if someone could block him.

--Dersim9999 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Spam from anonymous editors

The article requires multiple warnings. How do you warn an anonymous user, e.g., 39.40.54.7/10? Does a complaint to, e.g., abuse.irt@ptcl.net, constitute a warning? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Go to their talk page and warn them, as with any user. WP can approach their ISP if necessary.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately triggering the edit filter

See discussion at MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown § Deliberately triggering the edit filter (2), of relevance to AIV "regulars". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism-only and spam-only accounts

I often see an administrator decline a report when the reported individual has done nothing but spam or vandalize with the rationale that they have not received sufficient warning.

Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only such accounts may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely.

While the policy does say "may be" and not "normally should be", I don't think giving a spammer or a vandal a free shot at doing it some more is a good idea.

When one of my reports is declined despite it being clearly Vandalism-only or spam-only, I get discouraged and tend to feel that reporting vandals and spammers here is a waste of time. When I see an admin who often declines disruption-only reports I sometimes just skip AIAV and report them at ANI.

Note that I am not talking about spam-once, vandalize once, or IP accounts with less than a dozen disruptive edits. Those are usually not worth reporting in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: There are really two questions, here. "Should this account be reported to AIV?", and "Should this account be blocked?". IMO the threshold for blocking should actually be lower than the one for reporting to AIV. Most of the time, they just give up and probably don't even remember the password the next day. But once reported, I agree with you that it's silly to not block an user who obviously knows that what they're doing is wrong. Leaving the report, or declining it, just because There! Are! Four! Warnings! causes the original problem: cluttering up the board. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Bot to remove stale reports from AIV/TB2

I was about to suggest that MDanielsBot is broken. It seems, no, it was never approved to clear WP:AIV/TB2 reports in the first place. Should a bot clear reports there also? @Mdaniels5757: Are you interested in doing this? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Report sections

Wondering if there would be any benefit to break8ng the "User reported" section into 2 sub-sections; "Registered accounts" and "IP-user sccounts"...? (or perhaps with different names, ie: "registered" and "unregistered", etc.) Just a thought - wolf 13:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Archive AIV reports?

If you need me, I'll be working on an archive for RPP, where I have found generally favorable consensus. Chicdat (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that old AIV reports should be taken to a permanent archive. For instance, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1. It's very time consuming to search through the huge revision history, and these reports could potentially be useful. Chicdat (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, before we do this, it would be important to make sure we articulate a specific reason why the archives would be useful, not just "potentially" useful. Personally, I think the costs would outweigh the any marginal benefit gained. Most reports here are incredibly routine instances of vandalism, so there is very little need to go back and revisit cases. It may even be counterproductive per WP:DENY, since we would be keeping a permanent list of block-worthy vandalism. In that context, the fact the huge revision history is hard to search is a feature, not a bug. Mz7 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. We shouldn't provide an easy way for people to memorialize their vandalism forever. Not to mention that the archives would be a handy way for up-and-coming vandals to find out what really bothers us. And do we really want a search for "Joe BLP" to result in "this IP is calling Joe BLP a rapist"? There's always WP:ANI and (if relevant) WP:SPI and WP:LTA if something should be easier to find. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose We already have vandals who strive to become a part of WP:LTA unironically; there's no way we should do this with the small-time vandalizers who will then be encouraged to get themselves a sock drawer. Nate • (chatter) 04:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template for obvious block evaders blatantly vandalizing

Hello. Does anyone think it would be a good idea for this to exist? I believe that if a vandal is blocked and immediately cones back with an IP and/or second account, there can be issues. In these cases, SPI is pointless, wastes time, and often violates WP:DENY, especially for obvious LTAs. If the connection between accounts is obvious and disruption is recent and ongoing, AIV is the right place to report. Can a template be added to this, Twinkle, and/or RedWarn in order to expedite the process? aeschyIus (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

They say don't template the regulars, and that includes reports to admins. I can't speak for others, but I find canned reports here are usually just meaningless. I mean, most vandals are described as "evidently a spambot or a compromised account" when obviously neither. I think you can, and very often should, write a report using a really small number of words containing sufficient meaningful context. If they're evading a block, you're going to want to identify the original block anyway. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I think Twinkle leaves the impression that at least one checkbox must be ticked, or the report won't go through. So if none of "Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given", "Vandalism after recent (within 1 day) release of block", "Evidently a vandalism-only account", "Account is a promotion-only account", or "Account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account" apply, people just tick one at random. Hence those not-a-spambot-or-compromised account reports. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh, I know. Do we need another randomly used reason? I suppose another way to think about it is whether Twinkle should add an option which actually requires an extra comment (i.e. the block being evaded, the affected article, or similar). Best to ask Twinkle, but my enthusiasm for adding it as an option remains unkindled. I don't know enough about using RedWarn to comment about that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks like it offers exactly the same list, but at least there's an "other" option, which hints that, yes, the list is not exhaustive. IMO, no, we don't need another option. It doesn't take much time to type "Block evasion, {{conam|Foo}}". If you have to explain why it's User:Foo (beyond maybe one diff), then perhaps SPI is the right place after all. And then there's also the ultimate WP:DENY option: just pretend you didn't notice the connection and report them as any other vandal. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but what to do if the vandal only made one edit and wouldn't be blockable unless they were block-evading? What to do then? aeschyIus (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@AeschyIus: That option doesn't always work. I was mostly thinking of cases where they could be blocked without warning. For example, the "brand-new" user whose very first edit is to leave a homophobic slur at another user's talk page. Yes, they're someone's sock, but it's not usually worth the trouble of figuring whose sock. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow I agree now. This isn't the right solution. Is there a better solution to that problem? aeschyIus (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@AeschyIus: Well, just ignore the checkboxes and type a short custom report, then. The problem with a neat little form to report blocked evaders to AIV is that people will see the option and type out a 27-diff report, with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each diff, when they should be going to SPI instead. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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:

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?

OP is a sock of an LTA. WP:DENY. Girth Summit (blether) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 ([15]), but only made its first edit in 2016 ([16]). Then it made just eight edits over the next five years, all to user talk pages ([17]). 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 [18] 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)
You are the one with the WP:ONUS to gain consensus for your proposed changes. Instead you started an edit war. Now you openly defy WP:AGF by accusing others of "malicious accusations". I am speechless. Kleuske (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I was accused of vandalism when I have done no such thing, ever. That is malicious. That you would somehow question this is astonishing. Zqzkqzq (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Whilst I would not describe the user's edits as "vandalism", the edit-warring is clearly disruptive, and since they do not appear to understand what they are doing wrongly, I have blocked them for a short time. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • For the record, I have not used the term vandalism in this context. My sin was issueing a level 2 warning for removing sourced content without an explanation. Kleuske (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I have reviewed this block and declined the unblock request. A standard warning for removing sources content is of course not an attack. They are doubling down on their position. I am hoping they don't turn their 31 hour block into something more permanent. This is the sort of constructive criticism they will receive on a regular basis on Wikipedia and if this is how they respond to it then they are not here for long. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who is Dorthyyellow, and why do they have so much editing privilege?

I recently added several citation needed templates to this article, Gogyo, pointing out the many flaws it has. Then there's this individual, @Dorthyyellow:, who reverted them all almost with ease, even though they don't have any information on their page to merit this kind of privilege. The only justification they gave in the editing summary is that I was "vandalizing with malicious manner". Isn't it a little too easy to get to decide what's "malicious vandalism" and what isn't as a nobody, is it? Mazamadao (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverted you for removing references. Knock it off with removing sourced information and placing {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) in front of every word in the article. Nate • (chatter) 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mrschimpf: So bad sources that don't even prove anything related to the article are good then? You're talking as if I just added {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) because I like to. I have better hobbies than that. I'd like to keep my involvement with all this wiki stuff minimal, it's not exactly a fun and rewarding job, but this article is so egregiously bad that I had to point out how bad it is. I didn't want to waste my time to add those templates, with reasons why the claims in the articles are unsubstantiated or dubious. And "in front of every word" is a gross exaggeration of what was going on there. Now I know that if you can write a bad article that's so awful it flies under the radar, you can get away with it. Thanks for making me a better "vandal".Mazamadao (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
As I pointed out on your talk page, there's a talk page on the article to hash out changes and you should go there rather than getting into an edit war. Removing content without discussion is not part of that discussion, and is considered vandalism. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

stale notification

I reported an IP that has resumed disruptive editing following the expiration of a block. According to the project page no action was taken, and after 4 hours it was simply removed by a bot. What do I do next?18abruce (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You can report it at WP:ANI, or wait for them to start vandalising again. This page is only really meant for currently active vandals. If they are active again then you can report them here again. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
They are active and I did report them. It was ignored, then the request was deleted by a bot. I would have thought a chronic vandal was a simple matter.18abruce (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Unactionable reports?

Could someone please explain further what was meant by "unactionable reports"? I pointed out long term persistent vandalism of budget figures in film articles.[19] Maybe this is not the exact right place to report it, and if someone could explain perhaps I could report it elsewhere but the edit summary "unactionable reports" does not help me to help you to improve this encyclopedia and do something to prevent further ongoing vandalism. -- 109.78.199.18 (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Well for a start none of the three IPs you reported have edited recently, the most recent edit from any of them was on 29 September, nearly two weeks before your report. There isn't much point in blocking IPs for something that happened weeks ago. AIV is also intended for obvious cases of vandalism, anything which is more complex or subtle should really be dealt with elsewhere. WP:ANI is supposed to be the venue for that. Hut 8.5 13:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

4 hours stale time.... too short?

Just curious if 4 hours is sufficient time for a report to stale out with no action and get deleted? I have reported the same IP 3x in the last 24 hours because the initial report had staled out in 4 hours and the MDanielsBot simply zaps them without any action and methodology in place for further followup. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I need to amend this.... as in reading other threads on this page, someone above reported there is a bug in the stale detection time. Seems it has tripped over my most recent report as well, staling it out in 1 hour and 37 minutes. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

bug in stale detection

My report 11:36, 20 September 2021 has been deleted at 13:00, 20 September 2021 as "stale over 4-8 hours" when it has been actually for less than 2 hours. Please investigate this vandal case. --Wotheina (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I have to concur with this. My latest report (the 3rd time trying to report this IP) has staled out and been deleted in 1 hour and 37 minutes. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

IP vandalized same page twice (early 2020 to present), but was never warned, can I still report?

Hi, I found an IP Address that vandalized the same page twice, once in January 2020, and then October 2021 however was never warned.

Would I still be able to report them (or would they still need to be warned multiple times?)

UfoTheUfo (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It really depends on how stale it is and how bad the vandalism was. There's absolutely no need to go through warnings one through four every single time like a robot (depending on the circumstances), but most stale stuff usually isn't worth worrying about, especially with IPs. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Bot doesn't properly separate reports

Hello! So I noticed something about the bot. Recently when it moves a report that was in the instruction block to the end of the page, it appears to place it at the end of the latest report made instead of putting it on a new line separate from the rest of the reports. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

The user LuUkus has been constantly vandalising the Agathyrsi entry with edits regarded by legitimate researchers on the issue as historical revisionism and is now edit warring with me. Can I please obtain help to prevent them from doing so again? Antiquistik (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also wanted to ask the same and had the same concern about you. Deletion of sources is truly a bad habit. (last edit I wasn't logged in) --LuUkus (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI Antiquistik and LuUkus, as it clearly states at the top of this page "This is not the page for reporting vandalism. The page to report persistent vandalism is at Administrator intervention against vandalism." - Arjayay (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright, @Arjayay:. I have reported LuUkus to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. Antiquistik (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

please study and block 175.145.84.9 ,due to. uncontrolable vandalism over the page Actress Meena

175.145.84.9, an Anonymous IP address continously making disruptuve editing and vandalism by adding unwon awards and content to the article actress Meena, please block 175.145.84.9 from editing that page or any disruptive editing from all pages Josh janakiraman (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

60.54.89.125 this anonymous ip user is a version of same kind 175.145.84.9 through another ip is creating the same issue over meena and her name related pages...i removed and re-edited According to proper sources..but they try to make it in their own way by adding awards without win and sources..please block that vandalism maker immediately from that page and stop all further disruptive editings..

That anonymous ip created an id as User:DineshanMani and creating the same issue..kindly take immediate measures please Josh janakiraman (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Please take this issue in the main page not in the talk page, or in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring because the IP user clearly engaging in an edit war—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 11:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Victaulic page repeatedly removed content by internal representative

User Wikimoto123 has made several edits to only one page, Victaulic company. The edits are not productive, rarely provide an explanation and mostly serve to remove negative information about the company. GRADYA&M76 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You two have been involved in a whole-year content dispute...I'm ending it now, enough. Whatever conspiracy garbage you two want to fight over, I see not a byte of any discussion between you or WM123, and AIV has no role here. You're both fighting about content that literally applies not a bit to the company itself, or its officers, and nobody has ever been dragged into court over it. It's time for a pause in place because you both are fighting through comments, and are both in the wrong. Nate • (chatter) 22:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

user has deleted parts, if not whole, articles with little to no explantion

Please block user Wikicircuitz

Wikicircuitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wikicircuitz making disruptive editing and similar kind of vandalism by undoing all my good edits continuosly .even i warned twice about the block. Always providing persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada as reason by undoing my good edits. ..following my contribution and reverting it and try to make edit wars..please make immediate solution by blocking that user..also they edits my complaint over several admins by replacing that user's name with mine as the disruptive editor..please please block that ip and user..block permanently from editing.. Uma Narmada (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A neutral editor already opened a topic on this on WP:ANI. Please take the discussion there; this is a talk page where you shouldn't report issues directly. Nate • (chatter) 13:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Stale time

Mdaniels5757, please increase the stale time. It's apparently too high as vandals are getting away. [20] seems to be wrong too as that IP actually was blocked. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a reasonable solution in my opinion would be for the stale time timer to only decrease if the user hasn't made any other edits in X amount of time. That was vandals who are still vandalizing will get blocked in due time, and those who have vandalized a little bit and then stopped will be removed since once they stop they aren't doing any more harm than they've already done. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
That would be more sensible. It appears the bot currently only considers the report time, not the activity of the reported. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I'm fairly sure it does. While yes what I proposed could be gamed by simply just waiting for the report to expire by not editing for the allotted time, the current system allows vandals to get away if there's a large backlog on the page. In addition to what I said above I think the timer should also reset if the user edits again during that stale timer. Another proposal I have is for unactionable reports (such as ones were it's not vandalism, the user hasn't edited since the last warning, or they're given a warning) to automatically be removed from the page after a few minutes so that if they do continue, a user can easily rereport them without their report getting merged with the older "unactionable" report. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Would WP:VPR be an appropriate place to propose a change like this? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Blaze Wolf, not sure, but I'm guessing the bot currently simply doesn't have the functionality and as I learned Mdaniels5757 has health issues and didn't write the AIV function it doesn't seem feasible right now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add a bot to automatically remove AIV requests for users/ips who have not been warned yet

Lots of users request a block on users/ips who have repeatedly vandalized pages and normally would deserve a block, but have not been warned yet. This wastes the administrators time. A bot could easily be added to automatically check if a reported user has been warned yet. BalaM314 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There are instances where it is appropriate to report or block without a warning. Warnings are the rule, but there are plenty of valid exceptions. I wouldn't want to make it harder to report obvious disruption. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. My revised suggestion is for the bot to add a notice that "This user doesn't seem to have been warned yet! Unless the vandalism is so severe it deserves a block without warning, you should warn them first, and only report it they vandalize again." or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalaM314 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of tangents, do the warning templates activate or guide any automated activities carried out by the Wiki software? I usually don't use warning templates, because the language doesn't always match something I would say. Instead, I use my own text/markup that duplicates the standard warning icons, and draws heavily on the substituted templates' text. But are Wiki automatons missing out on my warnings because of that? I've always been curious. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin AIV declines

Something which came up a moment ago—can non-admins (read: experienced RC patrollers etc.) decline AIV reports? That could help reduce the backlog as sometimes quite a number of reports are declinable.. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 07:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't require an admin to use their toolsets (such as blocks), I don't see a reason why not per Wikipedia:NAC. But this page rarely gets that backlogged that it would require non-admins to do it, I wouldn't think. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There are two types of declines. There are comments, and there are removals from the board. Comments are great. However I've always been uneasy with non-admin removals, except for self-reversions and other obvious - and I mean really obvious - cases. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There's a widespread myth among some users that every vandal, without exception, must get a "final warning" template before being blocked. Some even think that every user, again without exception, must receive exactly four warnings. I don't want to report a porn vandal, or obvious LTA, only for my report to be ignored when an over-enthusiastic newbie sees the redlinked talk page and marks it " User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently.". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
True. I wrote what I wrote in a hurry, which is rarely a good idea. Comments are still great, and non-admins shouldn't be removing reports from the board except in very rare cases (even blatantly disruptive troll reports may benefit from an admin's tools). I don't actually use the response templates very much, and rarely rely on those placed by others, but some people do, and that's a good enough reason for non-admins to be not using the 'decline'-type templates (unless they're right). Do we want to split them into an 'admin-only' template group? Or maybe non-admin declines? Or do nothing? I don't know. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Good comments so far, thank you—I'm still quite unsure what side I'd "come down on" on this. There are certainly editors who I'd trust to make formal declines (and some I certainly wouldn't..!), but maybe the answer isn't changing things here but forcing encouraging them to RfA? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 22:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting idea. I would suggest a RFC for this. Bobherry Talk Edits 01:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
It could be a perk of the new upcoming user right relating to IP masking. Bobherry Talk Edits 01:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This page rarely gets backlogged, so I don't see a purpose, it puts too much power in people's hands for too little of a reason. Sea Cow (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
To any confused editors summoned here by Yapperbot, this wasn't an RfC; it's an early-stage discussion that had a premature RfC tag placed on it by an editor other than the one who started it, which has been removed. Vaticidalprophet 03:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Adminship shouldn't be a big deal and it shouldn't limit the way non-admins can help with administration if that can be helped. When I first stumbled across this discussion, my mind immediately went to RfD: only admins can delete pages, but experienced non-admins can close RfDs provided that the end result is not "delete". Why should WP:AIV be different? Only admins can block other users, but experienced non-admins can close AIV requests provided that the end result is not "block". However, while I still don't believe it necessary at the moment (every visit to AIV I make displays <10 reports), the idea should not be thrown away. It shouldn't take too long for people who actually want to help to learn about the appropriate times to leave it for an admin, and the appropriate times to decline and move on. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 07:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There are a few differences with RfD. First, RfD matters are never urgent. If a NAC is "wrong", so what? Reopen the discussion tomorrow, or next week or month. But a cluelessly declined AIV report might mean dozens of disruptive edits in the next hour. Second, this page should be kept short. The natural thing for the reporter to do in response in a incorrectly declined report is to start arguing with the decliner. But this is not a page for long-winded discussions. Third, there is no archive of reports, nor should there be (per WP:DENY and WP:BEANS). So an incorrectly removed report is effective "lost" in the huge page history. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading through this, in theory it's not a bad idea, and I agree that adminship shouldn't be a big deal (although it should be treated seriously), however if this does go through, even if a user makes a mistake and thinks the user hasn't been vandalizing enough to be blocked without going through all the warnings, I think it would be a good idea to remember that if at one point the user is determined to not be in need of a block, that doesn't mean they shouldn't ever get blocked. I also think if this goes go through, users should be cautious and carefully review the report so there are fewer mistakes. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to encourage people who can't see deleted contributions to remove AIV reports. —Kusma (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I would discourage non-admins from using AIV signal templates like {{AIV|declined}} to decline reports; if a non-admin believes they have more information that would be helpful to administrators reviewing reports on this page, they are more than welcome to add that in a comment. However, the final decision of whether to block or not to block should be left to an editor with the ability to actually carry out a block. I fully agree with Suffusion of Yellow's reasoning for this above, and I would add that another angle to this is something along the lines of WP:Relist bias: when editors are asked to weigh between two options, one which they have the technical ability to implement and the other which they don't, there is a natural bias towards using the solution that they are able to implement. I suspect this would be manifest here in a slight over-tendency of non-admins to decline borderline reports where a block could have been within discretion for an administrator. I also agree with Kusma's point above that the decision to block often requires factoring in information that only administrators can see, such as deleted contributions and private filter logs. Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoking

Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit odd that run-of-the-mill talk page revocation requests are supposed to made at WP:ANI? As far as I can tell, that's only the recommended practice because the bot will remove any such requests from AIV. What if instead we format TP revocation requests like:

* {{TPVandal|Example}} Blocked user is posting racist abuse on their talk page. ~~~~
* {{IPTPVandal|127.0.0.1}} Blocked user is posting racist abuse on their talk page. ~~~~

Or maybe instead:

* {{Vandal|Example|tprevoke=1}} Blocked user is posting racist abuse on their talk page. ~~~~
* {{IPVandal|127.0.0.1|tprevoke=1}} Blocked user is posting racist abuse on their talk page. ~~~~

The bot would remove these reports if and only if talk page access is disabled; otherwise it would leave the reports alone. Then there would be no more need to memorialize the abuse at ANI. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow Makes sense to me. Given that nobody has objected in ~1 month, I would implement this per WP:Silent consensus in the templates and leave a message on the bot operator's talk page asking for the bot code change. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense! Now, 3 makes consensus... -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good, but I've been revoking TPA via RfPP requests-- reblocked is one of the templated responses there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Even as a non-admin, this sounds like a good idea. However I'm a bit confused as to who would implement the code into the bot, since I've been told the AIV functionality for the bot wasn't even added by the bot operator. BUt I do agree that it's a bit extreme going to ANI to request talk page revokation of a user. I always just ask either the blocking admin or another recently active admin on their talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Which works quite well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but sometimes I think it's good to have a backup. I've started to implement the appropriate template code and design, and will pitch it to the bot ops for inclusion. I feel like RfPP is a bit off to request TPA revocation, as it's really just "protecting" a page for 1 user. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: Thanks for moving forward with this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Unless you pick the admin who just signed off for the night, that is. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bot summary when removing blocked IP

Hello! I recently noticed that occasionally when an IP gets blocked, the bot's edit summary saying who was blocked and who blocked them is screwed up and doesn't appear to work properly, instead displaying "Special:Contributions/ rangeblocked unknownby [[User:|User:]] (TPD)". I don't know what causes this to happen but I feel that I should mention this so that someone who might know more than I do could find out what causes it and propose a solution. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, when that broken edit summary is shown, it's not always because the IP was rangeblocked. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Request

Please move this page to Wikipedia:Vandalism noticeboard and remove redirect. Mirhader (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? this is the talk page for Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard, it does not need to be moved. Chip3004 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done. I think there is a misunderstanding as to the purpose of this talk page. It is for discussing improvements to the project page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:JasonBorn6,Possible sock puppetry vandalism?

This particular User has made multiple unconstructive edits to this article in which they removed large pieces of information without any reason and did not add anything to the article. This editor also has made no attempt to seek consensus. These edits are also their first edits and the account was only made today.

(1) (2) (3)(4) (5) (6) (7)


--Basedosaurus (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Basedosaurus: I can’t comment on possible sockpuppetry without another account being identified but certainly it is disruptive to make those edits without explaining why they ought be made. You’ve reverted them, that’s OK. You've warned them, that’s good. They have made no edits since being warned so there’s no action needed at this time. If they resume, ensure they have sufficient warnings and then report them at WP:AIV. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Malcolmxl5 I've only reverted 3 of them as I don't want to be warned or banned for edit warring.They made more than 3 disruptive edits. Basedosaurus (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I saw. If you feel you are being drawn into edit warring, raise your concerns about the edits on the talk page and let other editors chip in. Meanwhile I’ve added the page to my watchlist. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Requesting talk page access revocation via AIV instead of ANI

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Requesting talk page access revocation via AIV instead of ANI. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we have a feed a bot posts on IRC?

I used to have one but then the toolserver changed and somehow an account isn't easy to come by, now... ~Lofty abyss 15:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple failed attempts to make a report, because archive bot is 'too' active

It's very difficult to make a report to this board, when the 'very active' bot', keeps 'edit conflicting' you. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Just use Twinkle? I've never had any issues with making a report on this board regarding edit conflicts. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to see what happens to a report

It was hard to see what happened to a report.

I submitted a report at 12:59. It was responded to. Then at 14:20 it was swept away by the bot. 81 minutes is apparently longer than "5.1 hours".

The only way I could see what happened was to go looking through the edit history.

Is this the intended behavior? -- M.boli (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@M.boli, what type of report did you submit? A vandalism report (WP:AIV)? They do get swept away once they are acted on. Or was it a report you submitted here or another place?-- Quisqualis (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
It was an AIV. The person who acted on it disagreed with me, but no matter. The important point is that the post and the response were swept away shortly after it was acted on. I would never have seen the comment until I figured out it must have been deleted and went looking through the edit history. This strikes me as user-unfriendly. I was wondering if it was the intended behavior, viz: I there is an expectation that the person who posted the report doesn't care to see the result. I understood about the variable-time sweep. But 81 minutes was a lot shorter than the documented time. -- M.boli (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
AIV is a board for uncontroversial vandalism or other kinds of obvious policy violations after sufficient warnings Andre🚐 00:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is intended behaviour. In short, if you care to see about the result of your report, then it doesn't belong at AIV. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
While I agree with that analysis, I wonder about the 81 minutes (diff). This is not expected. Even the earlier report removed at the same time was only 3 hours old. Either the bot has started to listen to admins, which I doubt, or the bot's clock was out of sync, or there was something funky going on with the formatting. In general long reports with bullet points and other formatting are usually inappropriate for the reasons mentioned above. @Mdaniels5757: for FYI anyway. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for @ing me. zzuuzz was right: it was "something funky going on with the formatting". Specifically, the bot is not built to handle multi-line reports. The first report (12.86.182.34) was removed properly (14:20-09:08 = 5.2hrs). The bot thought the second report (Awe Fadekemi) was part of the first report because the {{vandal}} template and the signature were not on the same line, and therefore removed it too. (As far as the bot was concerned, there was no 81-minute old report.) Adding support for multi-line reports would make the bot more complicated for little gain, especially given that long reports are not suitable for AIV, so I'm inclined to not do so unless others think it would be useful. (Ping: @M.boli) Best, — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification (and yes I was misread timestamps). From my perspective this is a feature not a bug and I don't see the need for any change. There's 101 different possibilities for overly complicated reports, and there's no point catering for all of them. If anything, better directions to keep reports short and simple are what's needed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Righto. I can see I was operating outside of the norms of this noticeboard. I will now know better how it operates. Thank you to everybody for taking the time to explain, and to @Mdaniels5757: for specifically looking into the code to figure out what happened. -- M.boli (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

{{Vandal}} and {{IPvandal}} merger

A couple months ago it was decided that these two templates should be merged. This has now been done. They both work the exact same ({{IPvandal}} redirects to {{Vandal}}) and it supports both Users and IPs. The links provided are the exact same as before. --Trialpears (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

invalid report

I have just added a true information regarding malhun hatun .it is not false why you reported me Zaynabia (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zaynabia: You're correct. It's a false positive. I've reported it to the bot's maintainers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks i request you to add more information about malhun hatun as they always revert my additions. Malhun hatun character still needs a lot of additions as the story of series has moved forward Zaynabia (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Reports being discarded by bot

Help is needed at AIV. No admin activity for hours. Quisqualis (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Bot offline

It appears that the AIV bot is offline due to it running on Toolforge which is under scheduled downtime as recorded at this VPT post. This seems to affect UAA and AIV so users and admins who are patrolling both noticeboards will have to remove blocked users manually. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Bot is back up and running. Thanks to all those who manually clerked it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Issues

Does anybody know what has been happening lately? There have been three accounts in the past 48 hours who have conducted rapid reverting and placing "final warnings" on editors' talk pages. I have been affected by all three and I know that User:Ss112, User:Dicklyon, User:Arado Ar 196, User:DiSantis19 and User:Editrite! are just some of the many editors that have also been affected by either one or the other. Luckily two of the "vandalism bots" have been blocked and the other is being reported right now, but is this a normal issue for a long time on Wikipedia or has it been escalating in the past few days? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a thanking bot that sent a few hundred thanks a few days ago, but other than that, there hasn’t been that much. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
This was an instance of an LTA who has been more active than usual in the past few weeks. Wikipedia has had LTAs for a long time; it wasn't the first and won't be the last. Please keep reporting them if you see them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Bot offline again

The AIV helper bot is down again. Hasn't been working since 23:30, 20 April 2023 UTC. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's now working again since 13:47 UTC. :) Sheep (talk • he/him) 14:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It's back up again after bot owner restarted it. Once again, thanks to those who manually clerked the noticeboard. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

sudden vandalism pattern by this user

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157232608 93.140.168.91 (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for stopping rapid changes and vandalism (unsourced) by anonymous users

After brief discussions in 2021 (Wikipedia talk:Requested moves), full stops have been removed from each and every Indian sports clubs' "club name" (irrespective of the club logo having/showing the format or not)! I'm requesting administrators, if possible, please take action against the haphazard/quick changes/removals in the particular article named Minerva Academy (by ip/anonymous users), this will be highly accepted and helpful! Regards :) Billjones94 (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Ragging of Senior Wikipedia Users specially @capitals00

hello sir,I am going through very bad situation where some senior users repeatedly blanking content without providing sources or giving reasons! As Wikipedia User @Capitals00 is doing.he is continuously blanking pages without providing sources or evidences as he done on the page of "Mughal-Maratha wars".he is blanking the pages & if we are asking why & you should provide sources or talk on talk page or you should overtake us in that discussion,even after saying this he continuously blanking content and saying I don't need to overtake you! Other user also warned him on his talk page but in response he blanked it by saying 'useless reminder'. after very clear resourch I found that he is blanking the content which is releted to people's who's religion is "Hindu".he is starting religion war here you can check it. Please take the action immediately and try to block him. Aryan330 (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Did you checked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan330 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sudan and percentages

Hello admin I added the sources to back up my claims and percentages for religion in Sudan but some user keeps changing it and lying by saying that none of the sources I added mention the stuff i wrote when they do. He/she continues to also remove these informations and sources and revert it back to their edits. You should see the history of my edits on the Sudan page to see my point. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars

hello admin, I have Bgsu98 violating the site by changing the dance charts, I keep trying to fixed them but keeps reverting my edits, claims I'm violating the policy but I'm not, Bgsu98 been doing to other site, please stop Bgsu98 from ruining this site Vegawolfdog (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Already being discussed on Bgsu98's talk page and their reverts are proper; as the tables are sortable in each season article, finding the high-low dances is easily done by any reader without a chart also pointing that out. Nate • (chatter) 23:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
i respect that, I just wanted to make sure the page isn't ruined, and I'll play it safe for the upcoming season of dancing with the stars Vegawolfdog (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Lee Van Cleef

I'm not sure how to report this, because the other editor changes IP addresses with every editing session, so leaving warnings has turned out to be a waste of time, but there is an ongoing (usually subtle) vandalism situation with the article Lee Van Cleef and related articles.

Most recently, the editor added an inaccurate award nomination to Lee Van Cleef with this edit, and then altered Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture, to support the lie, with this edit. Then, under a different IP address, altered 29th Golden Globe Awards in the same way, with this edit. And this editor has, under different IPs, done the same thing in the past (diff, diff, diff, diff). There are issues with this editor's other changes to Lee Van Cleef, as well.

I've been chasing this editor around futilely from IP to IP for several days, so I thought it was time to bring it here to find out how to proceed. Thanks! —ShelfSkewed Talk 13:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@ShelfSkewed: Judging by Whois data, this is likely a customer of Irancell. If things got sufficiently bad, an admin could block the whole IP range, but obviously that's going to cause a huge number of collateral blocks; page protection is the other obvious possibility, but there are enough golden-globe-adjacent pages that it'd be a pain to get all of them. Probably the best move is to bring it up on ANI and let an admin make the call. Gaelan 💬✏️ 17:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. If an admin doesn't respond here, I'll try ANI. —ShelfSkewed Talk 17:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Reports can only be removed.

If the user is blocked, or the report is stale after 6–8 hours. 23.245.47.124 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

A user is clearly putting marketing material on wikipedia

Contributor is User:Sleepwell111. Article is De Rucci. Certainly looks promotional - I've reverted, but will leave the CoI issue to someone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CAPINYOASS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:CAPINYOASS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 22 § Wikipedia:CAPINYOASS until a consensus is reached. —Cryptic 06:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Admin deleting files without atleast attempting to contact the editor.

Pleae look into EugeneZelenko he keeps deleting peoples work. I have permission to use that photograph "Stuart Land". In conversation i have it in words from the artist himself. He actually gave it to me to use. If proof is needed I can give that anytime. I still have the conversation on record. Might help to ask him too but thats just too lazy, easier just to issue a copyright violation on a editor right.... MNeivandt (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@MNeivandt, This is a talk page to discuss the AIV noticeboard not a place to report anyone. Let alone about something to do with a separate project and which has it's own rules. I will however give you some helpful advice to read through the policies and guidelines over there, about what is required for copyright to be released under the compatible license and that the onus is on you to prove that when you upload it or through the proper channels for that project. Any file uploaded to the commons is released under a free license. Read through C:Commons:Copyright rules. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Note on AIV report

[moved]

@Daniel Case: It looks like you're responding to a particular editor. Did you mean to post this here? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. Will move. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Thank you for removing the vandalism to that page that I reported so quickly. I hope the editor responsible will learn their lesson and not do so again. It is always shocking to find jokes, slander or obvious lies on a page and they must be fixed swiftly. What I still don't understand is that the edits to that page were a prolonged campaign over several days against one article. Nevertheless, it is good that such problems are quickly taken care of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanRabbitry (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Report user Mys_721tx

User Mys_721tx cancel and revert the blocked page without any reason in 3 times and more. 183.179.129.14 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot warned him by myself 183.179.129.14 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Please see the banner at the top of this page. Also your report makes no sense. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § HBC AIV helperbot5 and AdminStatsBot

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § HBC AIV helperbot5 and AdminStatsBot. This is related to the bot that clerks WP:AIV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

Can someone please file a block request against User:HoBehNoChoo for vandalism? I am currently not autoconfirmed and thus am I unable to file such request myself. Random Stint (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Request copied to the main WP:AIV page. Left guide (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Random Stint (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

Add to under user-reported 49.179.89.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalised past level 4 warning SirUtahraptor (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

IP has been blocked since the edit request was made, nothing further to do here. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
That's because I brought it to AIV's attention and I would acknowledge here once action was taken, so it was  Done. Please double-check AIV next time. Nate • (chatter) 20:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have a “block user” button on here?

I’m just curious as to why there is a “block user” button on the actual page itself? That button got me confused because I was just being nosy looking at the block log and accidentally clicked the other button and well obviously I’m not a sysop so it shows up as “permission error”; again, begs the question as to why these buttons are visible for all editors and not just editors that have permissions? (Eg. Admins and checkusers, and etc.) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And I’m going to ask the similar question as to why we have a button saying “deleted contribs” and “nuke contribs” the latter of which I have absolutely no idea what that even means); and both of which requires a sysop flag. Why are these buttons visible to normal editors as well? It makes no sense to me. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The {{vandal}} template doesn't have any way of knowing if you are an admin or not, so it displays these links so that admins can have easy access. I wonder if there is any technical/performance reason not to use something like {{if administrator}} to hide these links. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
With the block option, at least, it could probably just be removed. Does anyone use that to block? I always block from the contribs page after verifying a block is necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I think most probably block from there, but I don't think that should preclude someone who doesn't, say, from opening both contribs and the block page. Or since they were mentioned, deleted contribs and nuke contribs.
@Jake Wartenberg, the immediate template doesn't like just plugging that in. You'd have to change {{user-multi}}, and I would expect that to require some actual effort. I think working on that would be beneficial for other templates as well. Izno (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I do a large proportion of contrib-browsing, and also check warning timestamps, using popups which means with many vandals I often don't have to leave the page and can click on the nearest block link. If you're not using popups, I highly recommend it. This is really a page for admins to do admin stuff, so I'm content with having admin links on it (but if you want to delve into the complications, whatever). -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The reason I was even over here in the first place was because GeorgeMemulous pinged me over here in an edit summary because some troll had impersonated me and left a fake user warning on another admin’s talk page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/Archive_16&oldid=1245852845"