Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Vanderalism

This user and I gave warning but they keep reverting . This user is [[[User:Mymis]] Valleryking (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Mymis Valleryking (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Warnings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserProfile/Mymis Valleryking (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Real Housewives of Atlanta vanderalism Valleryking (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this the edit you've got a problem with? Content disputes are not vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), but the source you're citing there fails WP:RS -- Celebrity Dirty Laundry admits that it is nothing but a rumor-mill gossip site that cares more about sensationalism than verifying facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait, I see, this edit is what you're complaining about. You're even more in the wrong here -- this source (which the article currently cites) supports the information that Mymis restored. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I stop reverting n making changes on the Real Housewives of Atlanta. Because I know n idk bout Claudia n yeah sore n god blessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleryking (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

LGBT right in Croatia

Hello everyone!

Almost a year ago LGBT rights in Croatia article was a victim of homophobic campaign, and I am sad to see it happening again. Almost a year ago, a particular user got banned as he was making numerous changes not just to this article, but to many other articles concerning LGBT rights. Few days ago I have noticed identical problems happening again, but with a different user called user:sdino, who funilly enough has received warnings for the same things as the user in the past. It might be a coincidence, but it is interesting how both users are from Poland, and declare themselves to be anti gay marriage, very religious, and obviously homophobic. Now, I am not interested in their personal views, but Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of political campaign. This user has made numerous changes to this article in the past days, had removed big portions of it, and has inserted a pie chart, translating Croatian into English wrongly, just to make a point. He claims 45% of people in Croatia are "extremely" against same-sex marriage, but this survey states they are "strongly" against it. This is exactly how the problem started the last time. I argued that we don't need a pie chart for this as there are numerous surveys, and will be in the future so I cannot see the point of having just one pie chart for one survey, and ignore all the others, Which brings us to my argument that we shouldn't really have pie charts for surveys anyway, as it would just create a mess. This might not seem like a big problem, but few days from now we will see this user changing terms, using different words, trying to present LGBT movement as "promotion of homosexuality" etc.

He will make more changes just to create an illusion how people in Croatia hate LGBT individuals, and I would appreciate some help so we can stop this right now. Many people contribute to LGBT right in Croatia article, and have done a fantastic job, so why let anybody spoil it for their homophobia? Thank you very much for reading this. 11raccoon1 (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)11raccoon111raccoon1 (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:ANI, please. --wL<speak·check> 11:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Intervene as User Bonadea is reverting without any logical reason

1) Below link shows clearly - no further citation needed for the sentence - M. S. Viswanathan also scored music for many non-film albums and for political campaigns.cn|date=July 2015 as in my version - .ref name="Hindu article in MSV" is mentioned!! 2) What makes you remove the line? - Cho Ramaswamy made a political satire film named Muhammad bin Tughlaq and Vishwanathan sang the song Allah Allah Nee Illadha Idame Illai. 3) Whats the issue with the line - He had played the child's character named Kovalan in the film Kannagi produced by Jupiter Pictures - when reference is already present? 4) Music directors like V. Kumar, Sankar Ganesh, Ilaiyaraaja, Gangai Amaran, Deva, Bharathwaj, A. R. Rahman, Yuvan Shankar Raja and others considered Vishwanathan as their inspiration.http://www.sify.com/movies/veteran-music-composer-ms-viswanathan-is-no-more-news-tamil-phok7Feachaac.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._S._Viswanathan&type=revision&diff=672135088&oldid=672134891

Just because in earlier versions there were copyright issues does not mean , present version , despite being free of any copyright violations, gets reverted! Also while the previous versions - straight lines were lifted from sites - as facts were being removed. I had promotly informed you, that you are free to re-write sentences , after I had put up all the facts with references in the main article page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._S._Viswanathan&type=revision&diff=672135088&oldid=672134891 - read it and observe by yourself that there is no copyright violation.Jancater (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is M. S. Viswanathan, and Jancater has posted this to several places. I think Jancater might not be fully aware of what copyright is, and that lifting a sentence from a source and changing two or three words doesn't remove any copyright issues. Several editors (including myself) have worked a lot to rewrite copyrighted and promotional text in this article about a recently deceased person, but it's not really acceptable to request that other editors should fix such issues - it would have been fully defensible, and much easier, to simply remove all such text. As it is, the article probably still contains copyrighted text, but most of it has in fact been fixed, and so it is a little annoying when more copyright violations are added. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I've protected the page to end the immediate disruption, if anyone feels the need to look into this further by all means do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Backlog Tag

There doesnt seem to be a backlog for this page so I went to remove it and it says not to. What will happen if I remove it? Should it be removed? Thanks Tortle (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The backlog tag is maintained automatically by a bot, if you remove it the bot will likely just put it back. Hut 8.5 22:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jammu and Kasmir page,harassmet by repeatedly deleting.

He keeps deleting what is added,along with citations.He sayz it is not neutral .But i argued ,giving more facts is not changing the neutrality of wikipedia.he harasses me saying i will be blocked ,by showing TW batch.i dont know how to use talk feature.Even if i did, i dont think i can convince him because he doesnot agree with facts .the harassing user me I m a newbie to all these high profile editing .Does it mean that i cant put valid points sir ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserProfile/IgnorantArmies

Ranjan s nayak (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Ranjan s nayak (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't know how to use the talk feature, but you're writing here...? You realize this is a talk page, right? LjL (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Range block for long-term vandal using numerous IPs?

Over the past 5 so weeks, there has been an incredibly persistent vandal targeting tropical cyclone articles. The user is always under the base IP of "187.198" and purposefully adds false information despite countless warnings...generally in the form of changing wind speeds. I'm wondering if a range block is possible for this person since they seem quite intent on adding false info. WP:Range was vague on what would prompt a range block so I figured asking couldn't hurt.

List of IPs (that I'm aware of) and the dates they were used:

Thanks in advance for your help. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit, you'll probably get more of a response of you post to WP:AN. --NeilN talk to me 23:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any citable sources to confirm that the edits are vandalism, as opposed to corrections to old data ? Richard Harvey (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have a similar problem. I don't think I caught all of this person's edits either. 2602:306:CD51:9170:8419:466:565C:544C

2602:306:CD8F:9060:54B3:E942:F8E6:9AF0

2602:306:cd51:ab70:e944:9afb:5cb9:4142

2602:306:CD8F:8C70:14BE:366D:EA26:EA36

2602:306:cd51:8c10:3581:95e1:da38:5b65

2602:306:cdc2:3930:51c4:5933:e564:919a This person seems to have a particular pleasure in changing the release date for the episodes of webseries a few months different here and there. The vandalism is small enough some of these changes have taken years, if ever to fix all of the damage. Yes, as seen in my recent edits of List of The Guild episodes and List of Mortal Kombat: Legacy episodes, the vandal didn't even take the time to change the List of seasons dates. Most of the edits seem to be coming from Raleigh, North Carolina. I don't know if we can shut this person down. This person seems patient enough to wait editors out on these backwater pages. In the end, I know there used to be some sort of verify edit type of system that used to be on wikipedia. Maybe pages like these need to be under that banner. Oldag07 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Also posted on WP:AN over here Oldag07 (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism-only and spam-only accounts

I noticed that some report of vandalism-only and spam-only accounts are being rejected with the message "No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings". Since when do we warn vandalism-only and spam-only accounts instead of blocking them on sight? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Since always, if they haven't been warned sufficiently. --NeilN talk to me 19:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That isn't what Wikipedia policy says.
"While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block"
"When warranted, accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without warning, usually indefinitely."
"If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism" --Wikipedia:Vandalism
--Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Critical words there are "may be". Whether a vandalism/spam-only-account needs to be warned before his block has always been left to administrator discretion. Can't comment more without seeing specific cases you had in mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whether to immediately report and block a vandalism-only or spam-only account depends, in my mind, on whether there seems to be a reasonable possibility that after being warned, the user will start contributing properly. The purpose of the warning sequence is to flag down new good-faith editors who are making test edits, or to let newcomers unfamiliar with how the site works know that their edits are being followed, or to advise those posting spam that it isn't permitted here. The purpose is not to give anyone with a little extra time on his or her hands the right to exercise our vandal fighters with hoops to jump through. Clues in making these decisions can include the nature of the bad edits, their frequency, sometimes the username, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent point. IMO, the admin should also take into account the history of the editor who reported the vandalism-only or spam-only account, and thus expressed the opinion that an immediate block without any warning is justified. If the administrator sees a case that could reasonably be decided either way and the reporter is a veteran editor who shows a good understanding of policy, has a clean lock log, isn't involved in editing the pages in question, and who rarely reports vandalism-only or spam-only accounts, it is quite reasonable to defer to the judgement of the reporting editor. Also, if the administrator is in the habit of going through AIAV and always blocking VO/SO accounts without warning or never blocking VO/SO accounts without warning, that admin is not exercising administrator discretion but rather acting like a robot. I don't want to be blunt, but there is no nice way to say this; any admin who holds opinions like "Since always, if they haven't been warned sufficiently" should not be involved in AIAV (nor should an admin who answers "never" instead of "always"). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
With respect, editors can't change the facts about the account. An established editor can be very useful in identifying other possible accounts, or relevant page histories, or hidden messages, or other subtleties not immediately obvious. They will always be listened to. However if a user with a non-offensive name and one bad edit and no warnings is reported, it is exactly that and the reporter will make no difference. Admins would be very unwise to defer to other people's judgement to support a block. And I do not believe any admin will always require a warning, like a robot. I doubt you do either. However without a defiance of warnings, it's not so easy to say they are only here to spam/vandalise. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I missed the continuation of this conversation. Guy Macon, you initially said, "I noticed that some report of vandalism-only and spam-only accounts are being rejected..." (emphasis mine). My "since always" answer was intended to reflect that we don't always block purportedly vandalism-only and spam-only accounts upon report. Just today I rejected three of these reports for users who had made a couple of edits to their user space throwing up a resume or business contact info. They received no warnings and were reported here as spam-only accounts. I will delete their user page and give them a level 2 warning but I'm not blocking them as they haven't had sufficient warnings. --NeilN talk to me 06:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Quite reasonable. Please forgive me if I misunderstood your meaning. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What to do if Wikipedia mods are the vandals

I'm trying it here because I hope to get more support since the German moderators are highly autocratic to the level of nonsense. It kills the entire idea of free information of Wikipedia.

Subject: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung#Benutzer:Kpisimon_.28erl..29 Users: Kpisimon, Marcus Cyron Reden, He3nry

There is a German political article about the former Turkish president. Due to the recent incident where the Russian military plane was shot down I wanted to add a quote from Abulla Gül: 2012 - After a Turkish warplane was shot down by Syria due to violations of borders: ,,... It is not possible to cover over a thing like this, whatever is necessary will be done ... It is routine for jet fighters to sometimes fly in and out over (national) borders ... when you consider their speed over the sea ... These are not ill-intentioned things but happen beyond control due to the jets' speed.

This quote was accepted as every other useful information in the English Wikipedia Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_G%C3%BCl#Quotes

As usual the German admins vandalize the articles. First some user reverted the article, then I called the admins and they also locked. It does not come to me as a surprise. The German Wikipedia constantly loses it's authors [1] because the mod act autocratic like a firewall.

Please help and support free speech by punishing such moderator behavior.

Also note that I'm a user with spare time who adds occasionally something if it's relevant. I don't have the time and interest to have an account. At the moment I'm also writing from my university so the IP is also okay.

Thank you.--134.93.69.232 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the English Wikipedia has no control over the actions of the German Wikipedia. I'm sorry to hear about this. Are you sure they aren't unintentionally reducing the article's quality, rather than engaging in deliberate vandalism? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The IP is mostly talking nonsense. It basically seems to be a complaint of user who is frustrated that he is (rightfully) blocked from pushing fringe content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Better visibility

Maybe I'm just blind right now or keep looking in the wrong places/overlooking the right places, but I can't shake the impression that this page has a rather bad visibility probably making it almost impossible to be found by unexperienced/occasional/new users. I'm editing on en.wp for 8 years now and the few occasions I intended to report a vandalism were always a "pain" of sorts and I always ended up running a general search over all projects pages to get here. This page may need a better visibility/exposure in the community portal, help desk, editor primers and other standard project pages, a new or unexperienced user would consult to figure out how to report a vandalism.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Try putting a hyperlink to it on your userpage, or simply type:- WP:AIV in the search box. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes that fixes the issue for me, but it doesn't address the general problem. I'm less concerned with my personal inconvenience but that we lose help of the users I described above. They are willing to help to fight vandalism they come across but they don't know how and can't find a guide easily.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please re-block library IP

To fulfill the duration of their 2-year block. They were unblocked on September 20 for a "library editathon" and I think the intention was to reblock once that was complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnseeker2000 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 December 2015‎

Reblocked. Just Chilling (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Recent" warnings

With regards to reports like [2], how "recent" should a warning be to warrant a blocking versus a re-warning? Basically, how long is it until warnings become stale? It's been several months since I've been active with the admin tools, but I seem to recall there was a time where a "recent" warning was considered to be one within the previous 48 hours or so, so it's been a little surprising to see blocks being handed out based on warnings that are more than a week old. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason we ask for recent warnings is so we can be confident that the IP address is currently being used by whoever received the warning, and not some other person who has since been assigned the IP. From that IP's contributions I'm pretty sure it is the same person as they are making the same kind of edits to the same kind of pages. Hut 8.5 21:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Nude pictures block a page

Go to the state terrorism page, nude pictures come up and you cannot read the page, or do anything on the page at all. This is really terrible, you cannot even go to the talk page! The guy claiming responsibility is some guy called @Meepsheepy, on his twitter page you can see examples of his work, all nude picture blocks on wikipedia.Mangokeylime (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Its gone now, I have no idea what happened.... Mangokeylime (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone may have vandalised a template, and then it was reverted by a vandal fighter. Also the images may have been deleted. It makes it harder to identify what went wrong. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

El Clásico

El Clásico - Repeating vandalism and conflicts on this page ! Check the history ... all the time this happening - I propuse to be permanent blocked and only to be edited by registred users ! It is not possible to have so many vandalism attacks on one single article ! - instead of create more and edit more on Wikipedia (I lose time reverting vandalism)--Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25, see WP:FORUMSHOP. Your request at RFPP hasn't been processed because it's not a clear-cut case. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Alexiulian25, and you're not helping by edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 22:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

clear-cut case ? Please go on the article and check the history and see how many times people reverted edits there! and convince yourself AND DO SOMETHING - I do not have time for discussion - I have to improve Wikipedia. I am not a specialist in solving this kind of problems ! I am here to improve football articles - not to discuss with people or to revert pages - someone should help with this.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Checking History of Noticeboard

Do administrators frequently check the history of this talk page's noticeboard (that is, WP:AIV)? A little while ago we had a pattern where a persistent vandal kept removing the reports of their own vandalism. They have now been blocked, but do admins check for this sort of behavior by vandals, that is, vandalizing the noticeboard? (By the way, I would suggest extending the block and revoking the talk page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's fairly usual and doesn't usually go unnoticed. Admins get a lot of help by other users, including the reporting user, keeping an eye and reverting where necessary. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It happened again, and was dealt with again. When you say that admins get a lot of help by other users including reporting users, I will note that the other users can't block, only revert the notices. Thank you. I would have preferred a longer block, but a block is a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Subtle erosion of date accuracy

Seeing a recent increase in subtle vandalism where a number (usually a date) is +/- slightly. Examples: [3][4] -- there is some plausible deniability but I don't think so because in these examples the sources state clearly the correct dates. My experience is purely anecdotal. This type of vandalism is not new, just seeing more of it in my limited subset of watched articles (10+k). Which may be a statistical fluke, but wanted to report in case others have noticed. -- GreenC 05:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I call it fiddle vandalism. I've seen at least two cases where plausible deniability is lost because an editor has made two different changes to the same number or date in the same article. I've also seen a couple cases where one or more IPs makes the same unsourced, unexplained change repeatedly, until someone finally comes up with a source that verifies it. Focussing on the sources (if there are any) is usually the best way to address whether it's genuine or vandalism. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fortnights

Not a huge deal, but why is the removal bot saying I blocked someone for a fortnight? I blocked someone for two weeks, not a fortnight. Is there a good reason for the bot to use "fortnight" instead of "two weeks"? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior: A fortnight is two weeks, though. :) As for why it's saying that instead of two weeks, which I agree is easier to understand, I wouldn't know. Maybe to save room in the edit summary? Amaury (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

MaterialScient rm my report

MaterialScientist I am guessing that was a mistake however I will not revert you. Could you explain it here? Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't say whether it was a mistake, however as a second opinion - the IP edited for under 7 minutes nearly 3 days ago, with no edits at all after the first warning. It would be removed anyway as both insufficiently warned and 'stale'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
zzuuzz explained it better and faster than I was going to. Yes, there is no use reporting/blocking such IPs. They are called "stale" in WP:AIV jargon. Materialscientist (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: Still, shouldn't you just decline it by saying stale to avoid confusion and later a bot will remove it? Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, but note that bots don't remove declined reports from this board, (normally) only admins do, and they are few and busy :-). Materialscientist (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandal Account

Since I cannot submit an account more than once, I am placing the info here for User:Alphacuremome: On Middle Passage: vandalism after final warning. This user continues to vandalize the article even after final warning, and as I said before, using another account (user:Cs viper sc).

Keep in mind, that with a puppet (or ally), the incidents of vandalism in this page have reached 8, in a single day. Would appreciate your help or advice Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 22:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Their's were methodical insertions that were not easy to clean out. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 22:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed by an admin (ronhjones).   Aloha27  talk  02:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Userpage

First of all, I searched a lot but unable to find where to ask this question so posting here. A user (User:Ankit Sihag) has cloned my entire user page along with the user right templates so what to do? Thank you GSS (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: - you can try WP:ANI. - theWOLFchild 15:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Thank you so much – GSS (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the last AIV I removed

I should have put incorrectly warned, not insufficient warnings[5]. My mistake. Boomer VialHolla 13:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Prompt action (i.e. range blocks) by an admin would be a lot more helpful in these cases than canned response and removal. Vandalism by deliberate factual errors — compounded by IP hopping — is very time-consuming for CV and should be dealt with in a proactive, preventative manner. Qzd (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

New admin query

G'day all, when we don't block, but put one of the other canned responses up, why doesn't the page archive them soon after? Is it just done daily? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The bots working this page never archive any report that doesn't result in a block; they're only capable of recognizing that a reported editor has been blocked. We usually leave comments/declines up for a while so (a) other admins can comment/keep an eye on them/disagree if worthwhile, and (b) so the reporting editor can see the response. Eventually (between 5 minutes and 6 hours) an admin or page "regular" will just delete the report. If they're left up too long they start clogging the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Floq! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

How to request a user talk page block?

If a user is already blocked, how do I request that he be blocked from his user talk page? I used Twinkle to post a block request, specifying in the comments section that he has been using his user talk page as a web host. The bot removed my entry here about a minute after I submitted it, on the grounds that he's already blocked. So, no action was taken. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It is typical to post to WP:RFPP asking for protection, or you can directly ask the blocking administrator. I've taken care of your report. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How to report a rotating IP address

For the past year I have noticed a number of different I.P. addresses making the same style of edits (which is mostly large content removal and 95% of the time not giving a justification for these edits, and rarely when "justified" these include one-word terms like "irrelevant", "redundant", "concise", and "updation"), I've seen this editor edit mostly Nokia-related and India-related pages (as the editor themself is Indian), and a few of their I.P. addresses have already been blocked due to disruptive editing, while others have received warnings (mostly they blank their pages immediately after receiving warnings) and when asked why this person does what (s)he does or ask them on the talk page they rarely reply and if so often delete other people's posts on the talk page, anyhow this is concerning the character of the edits but what I want to know is how one can report a rotating I.P. address as this user can be 177.-something today and 233.-something tomorrow (using random numbers here).

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A typical way to deal with it would be to collect some of the IP addresses (preferably recent ones, and ones which have been blocked), and some of the articles affected, and then make a report to WP:AN or WP:ANI (depending on how urgent it is). Admins and other editors will consider whether to place a range block, or to protect the pages, or possibly other options. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalized page that I didn't understand how to report

The page Mohammed Matter is being vandalized by pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians alike, spreading biased opinions. I tried to balance it out but someone named Rafiq reverted it. I'd hope you either delete the article or lock it and rewrite it in a professional way. Elam Ron Elias (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elam Ron Elias:I have semiprotected it for now. You can report at WP:RFPP if you come across articles that need protection. Widr (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warriors

Hi. Kmoksy and Esc2003 have been long in a huge edit war instead of being kind and collaborative. Could you warn them? Thanks Manaviko (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to report such behaviour, in future I suggest WP:ANI. Another admin has warned both users. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Obvious and Persistent

This clearly doesn't mean the same to some people as it does to me.

Neither does The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.

If we're going to indefinitely block users with one edit and zero talk page warnings, maybe we should change the guidelines on this page? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally, blocking is at the administrator's discretion. More "petty" vandalism generally results in a full series of warnings before a block. WP:LTA users, WP:BLP violations, and other serious issues can warrant a block from no warnings, but this depends on the situation. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a reasonable explanation of what should happen. It's not what does happen in a number of cases I've observed. I guess the "administrator's discretion" clause is a pretty good catch-all, though. Gricehead (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't give any examples, but I would assume that at least some of the cases you have observed have been vandalism-only accounts. Depending on the nature of their edits, warnings are not necessarily required before blocking. There are also countless block evaders, trolls, spammers and other long term abusers that are often blocked on sight. It's also possible that some of their edits have already been deleted when you see them reported at AIV, so it may appear as if they have made just one or two edits, or have none at all. Widr (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please check

  • Can we get something done on the talk for Social work. I reported this issue to ANI this morning, and nothing has been done. Three previous ANIs have gotten no results. It has now gone complete edit war. The user is an IP hopper and discussion on the numerous IPs used can be found on the talk. TimothyJosephWood 15:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@HBC AIV helperbot: @WidrActions: @EdJohnston: can be seen in the particular page. There is no activities of vandalism as said in the ANI and isn't an edit war, if anything this ANI Notice was viewed by me accidentally now and the intend is very clear. This same notice is posted by the user when talk page initiative was started [6]. The action itself shows extreme hostility and perceived annoyance. But those who take actions do review the talk page and its history and the spirit of the recent edit. Thank you.59.89.239.32 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sub-heading Issues

There appears to be a second "User-reported" header within AIV, which is protected. Can an admin please fix this? 172.58.40.242 (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I've removed the extraneous header. Nakon 04:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Nakon: I think you removed the wrong header. The reports are now under the bot-reported header. (Also, the user-reported header is protected), 172.58.40.242 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Argh, I think it's fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. Nakon 04:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Help - a vandal just deleted my comment

The vandal IP deleted my comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=727275040

And I can't add them back. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The vandal sock puppet 2602:306:3357:BA0:D04E:A07C:AE65:ED36 (talk · contribs) did it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=727275650 208.44.84.138 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems resolved. Administrators closely monitor this page; removing something doesn't mean it won't be seen in the page history. Huon (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your reply. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about rangeblocks

If an IP is reported here (whether IPv4 or IPv6) and I block a range containing it, will the bot get that and remove the report? Bishonen | talk 09:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Super late reply, but the answer is no. The AIV bots also sometimes take breaks and don't remove any reports, not sure why — MusikAnimal talk 01:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, tuneful beast. What I've been doing is I block the reported IP first, to please the bot, and then the range too if appropriate. I suppose I could alternatively just block the range and remove the report myself? I'm always a bit scared of snatching food under the bot's nose, though. Bishonen | talk 06:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Nah, I regularly remove reports. Sometimes you might get an edit conflict but that's bound to happen anyway given the quick turnover rate at AIV — MusikAnimal talk 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin endorsement

Hi all, noticed this edit by Oshwah (nice work!) which "endorsed" administrator action. I think the limited use of this could be really useful in times of backlog - I propose adding this to the {{AIV}} template, any comments? -- samtar talk or stalk 11:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's handy when one is lining up for an RfA, certainly. Getting all one's ducks in a row, so to speak Muffled Pocketed 11:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
When I first saw it I thought it was an actual template and spent like 20 minutes trying to find it, because I definitely think this would be a useful template to have when AIV is backlogged. Omni Flames (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
No unnecessary non-admin clerking, please. That includes endorsing and especially declining. It will not help with backlogs; each report has to be evaluated by an admin anyway. Occasional comments are fine when they are really needed, but other than that, just let admins do the work. Widr (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the insight Widr - it's an interesting concept and I understand why really it wouldn't help reduce any sort of backlog. Would the addition of this template change how you personally would look into a report? -- samtar talk or stalk 11:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Personally I even check the reports that have been declined by other admins too. ;-) Widr (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Brutal :P get back to work Widr! -- samtar talk or stalk 12:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It would probably increase the amount of admin work anyway; in order to be sure of the 'verification', an admin would have to look at whether the editor was sufficiently experienced to make that call. Muffled Pocketed 12:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Very true Fortuna, I guess that scuppers this idea! -- samtar talk or stalk 12:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Shame. It would be good if a way could be found for trusted/experienced non-admin users to help with the workload. Gricehead (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It is a shame, and I think the original idea was in good spirit, but Fortuna's point above is very true -- samtar talk or stalk 12:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
If there was away of overcoming it, then it would have the desired effect, that of reducing workload. But the first thing an admin is always going to do is watch his / her back- imagine making it so easy to pull one up on the grounds that 'Hey that sock of XYZ just told you what to do and you did it!' (Extreme example, but you know). It's not impossible for it to happen- but I suggest it is getting quiiiite close to the old 'deputy-admin' proposal that gets raised every now and then- usually to no joy. Right / wrong? Muffled Pocketed 12:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suppose the template was rephrased simply to emphasize that the user is merely seconding the report, perhaps because they were going to report the individual as well? This would not be intended to take any work away from the admin but rather encourage some prioritization. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
That might do; after all, even though the board is for 'obvious vandalism', there are still differing degrees of that, so it could be handy to prioritise. However Ian.thomson: it would need the agreement and more importantly the participation of your colleagues to work *poke* *poke* Muffled Pocketed 15:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I was just thinking of some cases where one reported user might be rapidly engaging in blatant vandalism on a number of pages, while another might just be a slow acting corporate account or a kid making one disruptive edit every other day. All of them would need attention of some sort, but the first kind would need more immediate attention. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Widr that non-admin clerking is not desirable. Really the expectation at the moment is that all reports should be reviewed by an administrator, so non-admin declines are not helpful. Moreover, to take any action, an admin must be of the opinion that it is necessary. This will take the form of examining the edits to see what the problem is. No matter how trustworthy the reporter (or endorser) this still needs to be done. The kind of secondary commenting that is helpful (and which displays good knowledge and judgement for those tilting at the mop) is explaining when edits may look plausible, but are in fact the work of a hoaxer or a ban/block evader (or similar), and the original report did not make this clear. I have seen Oshwah do this before, I think. OTOH, a massive boilerplate template giving a non-descript endorsement should be avoided. BethNaught (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I wanted to thank everyone here for weighing in on this suggestion and thought. I've heard different opinions from different admins regarding the recent "clerking" I've been doing. As sad as it is, I will stop clerking AIV if the consensus is reached that I should no longer do so. Maybe this is a sign that I should just go for it already... maybe... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
There needs to be a consensus to stop you doing what you should've had consensus to do in the first place...?! :p Muffled Pocketed 02:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - Ouch! Slam dunk! That burned... I felt that all the way from here! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah: you're a great bloke. Looking forward to doing something I never do. Muffled Pocketed 09:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I regret coming late to the debate, but I oppose the idea. My aim is to keep WP:AIV as an efficient forum for admins to acknowledge obvious cases of vandalism. If an admin can't review contribs and talk and come to a quick decision, the issue probably has no business being posted at WP:AIV. I’ve made non-admin comments at WP:AIV, with the aim of expediting an admin’s decision process, but I would not want my comments sanctioned with a formal addition to the template.

To do so would create another layer of decision makers. Admins should regard our extraneous non-admin comments with the grains of salt appropriate to their recollection, if any, of our reputations in offering useful pointers. Us non-admins should add comments sparingly, as we do now, without any formal encouragement, and with the understanding that we are being bold in commenting beyond the intended use of WP:AIV. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is too complicated!

You want a casual user, who noticed (and corrected) vandalism, to read through all your Wikilawyering to learn what to do? That's nuts. Wikipedia has become way too bureaucratic. There should be a simple tool where users can alert admins about vandals! Or else obvious nonsense will go on uncorrected for a whole year or so, like in this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1017:B023:29B5:9F5:E253:2531:1BAB Damn, this excess of rules really turns people off. Wikipedia is on the totally wrong track. Gray62 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Gray62, TWINKLE is available to all users. All you need to do is check the box to enable it in your preferences tab. It automates vandalism removal, warnings, reporting, the various deletion processes and even reporting usernames that are problematic. John from Idegon (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
However, be advised that a dynamic IP like you mentioned will only be blocked for a very short time as it is used in rotation by thousands of customers. Blocking it will not stop the vandal and it will inconvenience a bunch of innocent people. John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Uptick in non-admin declines

Hi all, I've noticed an increase in non-admin declines here - as many admins have stated before, non-admin clerking at AIV is not helpful (which I agree with). Could I just confirm this is still the case? -- samtar talk or stalk 10:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's rarely harmful, but an admin will always check for themselves before removing the report so nor is it helpful. What can be helpful is pointing out something that's easy to miss or might take an admin a while to work out. But frankly what we really need is a better quality of report so that declines are generally unnecessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I question whether other admins will double check non-admin declines before removing them. Right now the standard procedure is to simply clear out declines that have been up for awhile. For a long time, they were only declined by admins, so any admin clearing out old reports wouldn't need to double check their reports. The assumption was made that an admin already made an assessment on the report. With the advent of non-admin declines, it hasn't really been expressly outlined in the instructions that before these reports are removed, they need to be reviewed by an admin. I'm almost certain that aside from non-admin declines of reports, we've also had non-admin clearing of declined reports (presumably by admins) but I wonder if some non-admins declines are also being cleaned up as well. Mkdwtalk 18:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I've had this discussion many times with non-admins (including Oshwah, in a conversation you can find in my talk archives). I think it's pointless, and I'd rather have them reverting and warning instead of commenting here. I always look at the report itself and the editor's behavior, because it's my set of tools on the line. (Being an RN will make you paranoid about verifying stuff other people tell you.) Likewise, I look at the stale reports, which have usually, but not always, seen the disruption stop by the time I get to them.
Non-admin comments can be helpful, particularly on obscure topics (like soccer! self-absorbed Americans FTW!) where I'm not sure if the edits are vandalism or simply content disputes. That said, they don't need to take the entire backlog and look at each and every one. I don't mind clearing of declined reports by admins, but if one of us hasn't taken a look it needs to stay up.
And I agree that the quality of reports has degraded over time. I'm heartily tired of people running here after one disruptive edit without even a warning to the editor. Katietalk 15:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with what Katie just said. For me there is no such thing as a non-admin decline. A decline is the removal of the report, and this is something we strongly discourage from non-admins. There's not much confusion about that. Anything else is left for other admins (and in fact others) to review, and they are probably reviewed many times before they're removed. And they shouldn't get removed unless they're reviewed because as Katie says it's the admins who get the flak. Any comments left are therefore merely advice. For this reason I'm personally not too bothered about it, and actually welcome helpful comments, including advice for the reporter in the case of bad reports. Clerking suggests something routine, instead of where appropriate, and we don't need routine commentary. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Bot reported me

I added "really cool" to describe something on an article and got reported. Can this be undone? JohnSmith678 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

And again, someone else was reported for no reason. JohnSmith678 (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Really cool" is not a very encyclopedic entry. It reads like a personal opinion, which is not what we do here.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting clerking

This topic has come up several times in the recent past, but I'd like to put my own opinion out there, and hopefully encourage some discussion on the way things stand.

Let's summarize the situation first. When I first started doing heavy anti-vandalism work in 2011, reports rarely seemed to go any longer than 10 to 15 minutes before an admin dealt with them. Now, at least 30 minutes seems closer to the norm, with many reports going an hour or more before being handled - far too long to be useful. Even as I type this there is a report that has been sitting for several hours, unhandled by anyone. We have fewer admins to do more work, it seems, and RfA's general requirement of significant content contributions excludes gnomes like myself from simply going and obtaining a mop to clean up the mess ourselves.

Now, let me put my opinion out there. Speaking as a non-admin myself who does a lot of anti-vandalism work, I believe some form of sanctioned clerking would be a beneficial contribution to AIV in cases of obviously bad reports. What out there says revenge reporting, false positives, invalid/misplaced reports and the like must be looked over by an admin? There are many experienced non-admin vandalism fighters who could do the job too, while saving time for the admins to handle the valid reports - and with the so-called "degradation" in the quality of reports that has been mentioned by several others here, I think it's more important than ever that admins not be forced to waste their time filtering through junk reports at the expense of those for actual, active vandals, who create enough of a headache as it is for the people who have to hit the revert button.

Simply put, AIV is becoming bogged down and broken. Let's reconsider our attitudes on clerking. It doesn't have to be fancy - even a system like XFD non-admin closures would greatly increase the speed and efficiency of the system as it stands. WikiPuppies bark dig 22:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @WikiPuppies: The issue does not need to be revisited; it was sufficiently discussed above. Non-admin clerking was roundly condemned, and the problem, as KrakatoaKatie pointed out, was the number of poor quality reports being submitted. Both by new users and those who should probably know better. Cheers. Muffled Pocketed 09:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I must disagree. The quality of reports is indeed an issue, but as I mentioned, it's creating such a large quantity of work that we just don't have enough eyes to go around. The valid reports frequently aren't being handled in a timely manner anymore because of it...and it would be easier to filter the bad ones than it would be to keep every random person who submits one in line, IMO. WikiPuppies bark dig 21:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Meaning no disrespect to you, WikiPuppies, you clearly mean well, but some of us have been doing this for a lot of years. I've been doing this for nearly seven years and there are others who have been doing it even longer. There are always busy times and quiet times, but generally the reports that need to be dealt with quickly are, and the ones that linger tend not to be good reports—people report things that aren't vandalism or they don't provide enough information. If there's anything that needs to be done to improve AIV, it's that admins need to take a much harder line on bad reports and remove them quickly and start warning repeat offenders, but that is not something that it's appropriate for non-admin clerks to be doing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • HJ Mitchell. Well if you look at WP:SPI there are non-admin clerks that do the majority of the "paperwork" and yet issues do not tend to arise. The reason: there is careful selection of the clerks as highly-trusted and responsible editors, many of who later go on to be admins themselves. And if problems do arise they can be dismissed. You could also look at ArbCom clerks, many of who are non-admins, but it works out for the same reasons. What makes AIV so different to SPI or ArbCom work? I doubt there is any. If anything they are more sensitive areas rather than less. It's just that wikignomes are now excluded from RfA, for no good reason I might add, so many highly competent and trustworthy editors have little chance due to differences in their interests. If AIV clerks can cut down the workload for admins, and speed the process, then it can only be a good thing. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mrjulesd, SPI and arbitration are much heavier, more intensive processes than AIV. AIV is a lightweight process; it's designed to work along the lines of "you line them up, we'll knock them down". There's no investigation or paperwork. If the report is good, the vandal gets blocked and the bot removes the report; if it's not, ideally it should be declined and then removed (or summarily removed if we're busy), but that's a decision for an administrator in the same way that closing contentious AfDs must be left to an administrator. So it's not that I have anything against non-admins, it's that there is nothing for them to do at AIV—no matter what they do, an admin has to make the same decision they would otherwise, so all they'd be doing is causing edit conflicts with reporters/admins/bots. The one thing that could be helpful (on carefully judged occasions) is evaluating a poor report that's been waiting for a while and pointing out something that an admin might have missed on a quick review (ie doing a sloppy reporter's work for them); but that doesn't need any sort of formal role, just experience and good judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • HJ Mitchell Ok I'm glad that you feel some additional non-admin input may be helpful. The reason I feel that designated clerks may be better than random users is for two reasons: (a) having appointed clerks may encourage their input. The reason being that the users in question well may feel a greater sense of belonging on an admin board, and feels that their input and help are being encouraged and appreciated (b) Clerks that do not perform well can be dismissed, which should ensure a high level of accuracy from non-admin helpers. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Again meaning no disrespect, but you've read far more into my words than is actually there. To be clear: on rare occasions, the difference between a report being actioned and it being declined might be an inadequate explanation from the reporting editor, and on those rare occasions an extra detail might be useful, and a non-admin with good judgement and a lot of experience might be able to provide that extra detail. Under no circumstances was I supporting any sort of regular "clerking" role at AIV. What clerking is needed is provided by the bots. Clerking in the way you want to see is useless at best (because an admin can't just take your word for it; we still have to do the legwork before blocking or declining) and at worst actively interferes with the smooth running of AIV (because the edit rate is so high as reports come and go that it would cause even more edit conflicts). Added to that, frankly, it would be seen by many as just another hat to collect and would add a layer of bureaucracy to what should be a simple process. Not a single admin has to my knowledge supported the idea of having "clerks" and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No disrespect taken, I know I can't convince everyone to WP:THETRUTH! Well if it's true that the is consensus among the admins that contribute to AIV that it is unneeded then obviously its not going anywhere. But I do feel that, if not a problem at present, it might well be in the future. RfA has gradually withered due to acute RfA inflation, meaning that more and more legwork in the future will have be done by non-admins, so it may remain a perennial proposal if AIV times go up, which I expect they will. There are many non-admins who will never get there simply because of a lack of interest in featured content work, who would probably be fine as clerks in most areas. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Featured content is not a prerequisite to RfA, but I agree that the criteria some people are using have little to do with admin work (which is mostly boring but occasionally requires careful judgement, and the experience to know which is which); but that's as old as the hills. It's not that I'm opposed to non-admins helping out where they can be useful (non-admin closes at AfD, for example, take a significant weight off the admins who specialise in that area), but that there's nothing non-admin clerks could do at AIV that would actually make admins' lives easier and it increases the edit rate (I often get edit conflicts just trying to clear out declined reports and if it wasn't for the fact that most edits are automated I'm sure the edit conflicts would be a major headache. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to adminstrators

A prolific sock puppeteer is currently using my signature to leave false warning templates on the Talk Pages of various users ([7]). I suspect that the same user may have been behind this impersonation account. If you receive any reports from someone appearing to be me, I would suggest making sure it actually is before taking it seriously. DarkKnight2149 15:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016


SunnyPatel69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism, block evasion. Article may need protection. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC) 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked them. Hut 8.5 20:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

New bot reports

A new bot request has been approved for trial reporting. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 3 for details. Please contact the bot operator directly if you see excessive false positives. — xaosflux Talk 18:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

AnomieBOT III/Trial block log

For any admins that process speedy blocks, please note the new feed at User:AnomieBOT III/Trial block log - these entries may actually need to be actioned - and any feedback is welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 3. — xaosflux Talk 15:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

82.132.1.7

This IP address 82.132.1.7 has made one vandalism to Wikipedia. I warned the user and looked up the IP under whois and found that it is a shared IP possibly, from a company. I would like to request an indefinite or substantial time period block be placed on this IP. If they want to edit they should have to make an account. TheUSConservative (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't block accounts for one edit, let alone IPs that are likely shared. If a pattern develops, feel free to report on the board. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism (User:Ebonelm), deleting our maps from different articles

Hello, we are having problem with User:Ebonelm who is deleting our maps that was specially created for Wikipedia. Here is a Ticket#2016111010015085 that proves our ownership. We also plan to make maps for main part of cities of Wikipedia.

And here are the sources of all maps we have uploaded: http://vectormap.info/free_vector_maps_downloads/davie-florida-us-free-vector-map-adobe-illustrator/

And others...

Pelase, block this user, and thanks a lot!


And here is another vandal deleting our maps. This user (Jc86035) deletes our printable maps of Guangzhou, China.

Source (on our website, please also see Ticket#2016111010015085): http://vectormap.info/free_vector_maps_downloads/guangzhou-china-free-printable-svg-map-in-english/ And thanx a lot)

What shall we do? We are going to make maps for just all cities Wikipedia has, but if anybody can delete it whenever he wants... it would be impossible. Hope ypu understand it. Att. Ilya Shrayber, VectorMap.Info Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya Shrayber (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ilya Shrayber: The very reason other contributors are removing your maps from the articles is that you add the source link of the map in the reference section which is considered an act of self-propaganda, in other words, matches the descriptions of our WP:conflict of interest editing guideline. If one wants to know the source of the map, they can click into the image description page. The presence of the external link which isn't part of the citation in the actual article is not acceptable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


Ok, understood now, and thanx a lot. So, if we don`t put any links (no problem with that), how can we obtain something like a green light for imrpoving the articles with our maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya Shrayber (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ilya Shrayber: Please sign after your message in any talk page with four tildes ~~~~. This is a very standard Wiki custom you should follow after being told to do so. It seems that your maps have other copyright issues as mentioned by user:Jc86035 that they are actually exported directly from Openstreetmap and your affiliated website is selling them without adhering to the requirements of Openstreetmap's either Open Database License or Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license. In such case, the usage of your maps in any article, even they're currently licensed under the seemingly compatible CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, is dubious. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello, "seems" and "is" - are different things, that`s what Mr Jc86035 doesn`t understand. We also talked to OpenStreetMap, and there are no problem, so yes, we will change the license and post it again. Thank you very much for your advices. Att. Ilya Shrayber.

Ilya Shrayber (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem will remain until you attribute them properly on your website as well as the files you've uploaded to the English Wikipedia and Commons. You can't just go around selling data, especially data which I know and can demonstrate that I have contributed to, saying it's your "own work" and without properly attributing it to your source. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Ilya Shrayber. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We just puted CC 4.0 License sign on a page and also deleted "All rights forever" from the footer. And the maps we will upload to Wikipedia, will have no logo on it, no problem. http://vectormap.info/free-vector-map-all-cities/ Ilya Shrayber (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ilya Shrayber: I think that according to the OSM legal FAQ, it's also necessary for you to credit them on your maps/website (since you've used their data):

Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors".
You must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open Database Licence. This can be achieved by providing a "License" or "Terms" link which links to www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl.
— Legal FAQ on the OpenStreetMap Wiki

Thanks for updating your website as requested. Keep in mind that if you continue adding links to your own website (the map images are fine as long as they don't have any weird display problems) you may be blocked for being here for the sole purpose of promoting yourself. This is not a threat, because I can't block you. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and there is a difference between the CC-BY (Attribution) and CC-BY-SA (Attrib.–ShareAlike) licenses; you shouldn't use one on your website and one on Wikimedia Commons. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! :) No, we will not post links to our website, no problem. And yes, we will try to draw more detailed maps, thanx a lot! :) Att. Ilya Shrayber. Ilya Shrayber (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Is swearing acceptable???

Hello If admins are seeing this I would like to report in that I have seen swearing in Transformers Soundwave section,in discussion Hated.In my own opinion I do not think it's acceptable to let it pass.Thank you for your attention Wikipedia ultimate weapon (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia ultimate weapon: it is perfectly acceptable to swear in discussions, as Wikipedia is not censored. Feel free to click on that link to find out more. I will quickly throw in as a disclaimer that many people use fruitful language on here, and you may find it in articles, per the aforementioned policy. Feel free to ping me if you have any more questions! Thanks, Patient Zerotalk 16:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Wikipedia ultimate weapon and Patient Zero: I think saying that it is "perfectly acceptable to swear" is likely to be misinterpreted. I can't tell exactly what type of behavior Wikipedia ultimate weapon is specifically referring to, but swearing directed at individuals or other kinds of personal attacks are definitely not acceptable around here. See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for details. Deli nk (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, no Deli nk: that is not what I was referring to. Obviously swearing directed towards people is frowned upon, especially when done in an insulting manner, and not to mention the fact that usernames containing bad language are unacceptable. But, swearing in conversation is usually fine. Patient Zerotalk 17:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I know what you meant; but I just thought it could be easily misinterpreted. Deli nk (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Deli nk: ah, got you. Thanks for clarifying :-) Patient Zerotalk 19:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalsim by Trajan33 on Boleyn's user page

I do not know if this was reported, but User:Trajan33 vandalised Boleyn's user page by writing things, like "We hate you" and vandalising the source code. He is not banned, so I thought that no one reported him. P. S. I want to fight vandalism, but I do not know where the "Hot spots" are. Any ideas? - FriyMan (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@FriyMan: That vandalism occurred over 2 years ago, and the Trajan33 account has been inactive for a long while, so nothing would be actionable even if you reported it on the WP:AIV page.
If you are interested in fighting vandalism, check out Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit and get some ideas of how you can participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

DuckTales Voice actor vandalism

IP user 98.178.131.104 is vandalizing the page List of DuckTales characters with false actors who either never voiced on the show or never voiced any of the main characters when it's officially credited in many media and DuckTales it's self who the actors in the episodes are. I corrected a whole list recently only for this person to vandalize the whole thing again. Can someone please deal with this troublemaker? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerSpax (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

86.22.208.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) BLP violations after final warning. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Please make the request at WP:AIV, not at the bot reports subpage. I doubt, however, that the block will be made in any case. (Non-administrator comment) --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"Contact 09035865525"

An IP-hopping spammer has been adding "Contact 09035865525" to Nigerian university articles for some time, e.g. [8], [9]. Is there any way to blacklist a string, in the way that we can blacklist a URL? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

WT:EF could be a better place to ask. This is an LTA case, and some socks are here. All edits come from the 197.210.0.0/16 range, which is busy, but we might consider blocking it. The added phone numbers vary. Materialscientist (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask at EF. Wikishovel (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on biography of a living political biography Calvin Cheng by an anonymous user

12 Dec. Politically motivated vandalism by anonymous user

User also vandalises page of Singapore celebrity chef in same way Justin Quek — Preceding undated comment added 12 December 2014

Adding signature here so the bot can archive this (misplaced) thread. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

lipsum.com has repeatedly link-spammed Lorem ipsum, there's a warning against adding generator sites at its "External links" section now, cf the comment.

lipsum.com is linked 49 times by wiki user pages, sometimes from funny accounts like this one.

Adding signature here so the bot can archive this (misplaced) thread. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

New Header

Template deployed. No real opposition and concerns raised here as the actual wording of the existing template is maintained. Deployed per WP:BOLD. Any further comments are always welcome on the talk page here. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2017 (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 have created a new header, that can be seen at User:TheMagikCow/aiv_instructions. It contains more information regarding how to make a report. Obviously, there can be stylistic changes, but this RfC should establish is there consensus for that text, specifically more information on how to file an AIV report on the page header?. The text of the original header is preserved, the only changed is the addition of wikicode used to report a vandal. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose (stricken per comments below) - Cart before horse. At least some of the proposed header is inconsistent with the policy at Wikipedia:Vandalism, to wit the instructions as to warnings. Change (or clarify) the policy first, then the header. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Mandruss What specific wording or points do you feel that there is an issue with? TheMagikCow (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but your point 2 seems inconsistent with this passage in the lead of the above-linked policy: "While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued)." Lower on the page: "...users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism." Like many policies, this one is unclear and confused, and I feel that must be addressed before any attempted improvement to the header that is supposed to summarize the policy. It is impossible to clearly summarize an unclear policy, and unwise to try to do so; thus, cart before horse. In practice, in some situations involving vandalism-only, I've found that no warning at all is necessary; more often, one warning is enough. The policy and the practice need to be brought into better alignment. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: The text, apart from the template instructions are taken directly from the current template. I have not changed the text from the current template. This is just a RfC about adding the wikicode to the header. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There is probably now some confusion, as I see that you changed the wording of the proposed header in this edit this morning. I haven't looked at the full detail, but I see that you have removed some of the wording which may have led to concerns for some editors, namely "... ; usually a level 4 or 4im warning, used appropriately." --David Biddulph (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, re-reading some of the relevant policies i feel it is clear that the original wording is the best. However, I feel that the wikicode is an important part of the header, providing easy access to the required wikicode. Thanks for the help clearing up the confusion! TheMagikCow (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm striking my Oppose. I still feel the policy needs clarification, but that needn't necessarily kill this proposal. The header should read For logged-in users only instead of For users only. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I have changed that wording - it makes better reading now. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Why? I'm not sure why this is needed inasmuch as the current practices and suggestions for reverting and reporting of repeated vandalism and the reporting of abusive editors/vandals is golden. Not sure why this is needed. Damotclese (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Damotclese: it just provides quick access to the templates needed to report a vandal at AIV, which helps new editors and is convienent for experienced ones. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and I recommend you just go ahead and do it. All your new header does is make the templates available to copy/paste. Are we really at the point where we need an RfC before implementing little QoL improvements? If there are small problems or if the wording could be better, people will hopefully fix it instead of reverting you wholesale. A2soup (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2017

please remove my up from this list 83.31.59.25 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#83.31.59.25. I'd also have to ask why you removed so much of the page's content. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I did something

I was trying to add "*204.122.255.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalized past final warning. JackOfPanTrades |Converse intellectually| 16:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)" but accidentally screwed up the template. Someone help? JackOfPanTrades |Converse intellectually| 16:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed already. Widr (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

How to mass hide vandal's edits

Hi all admins. I am a viwiki's admin. I want to hide (change visibility) all of a vandal's edits. Is there a way to do that systematically, all at once? Thanks for your advice and support. Tuanminh01 (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tuanminh01. See WP:REVDEL. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but that page only shows how to delete multiple revisions from a page, not from a user. Tuanminh01 (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... Pinging @Diannaa:, who is basically the revision deletion master. TimothyJosephWood 21:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately as far as I know there's no way to do it automatically. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you all. Tuanminh01 (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The AIV spammer

There's a banned user who everyday has been spamming this page with multiple often inappropriate reports. See recent examples here and here. I would suggest to admins not to waste your time on this person. In fact, you could probably remove the reports without giving it a second thought. Sro23 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

SPA IP

The IP 172.58.40.192 (talk · contribs) has been making reports here for several days now. From what I can tell many (most of them?) are stale or for one or two violations. I am wondering if there is any point in trying to explain the problematic nature of their reports. Speaking as someone who knows the ups and downs and ins and outs of editcountitis this might not be a problem but I thought I would mention it so that the admins who take care of things here can come to a decision about this. MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

See § FYI: The AIV spammer. This is all the same banned user. Sro23 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Backlog as of 18:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There are reports peding since more than almost two hours. Seems like all admins went offline at the same time. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the middle of a summer weekend and RfA is thataway. Some of these are not obvious reports and have very vague descriptions - one involving several IPs is possibly an LTA I'd need to look up somewhere else, or hope one of a few regulars might recognise it. But can we discuss your report as an example of what's often going on when this happens? I've no doubt several admins have looked at it and decided not to block. The edits are not particularly vandalism - the IP is clearly trying to highlight the origins of company names. It might not be ultimately helpful, but that's different from vandalism. A major major problem is that that talk page is an absolute mess without any clear indication of what's going on. A simple explanation of why the edits aren't helpful and a simple request to hold off would be far clearer, more effective, and far more likely to elicit a block than a whole wall of meaningless text. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't change anything in the header

Reminder: Changing anything in the header, including changing the backlog tag in any way, will usually prevent the bot from working. Likewise, if the bot isn't working and reports have to be removed manually, then use diffs to check for any changes in the header (this also applies to UAA). -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Question re tools

In the last few days, through the AIV listings, I have caught two different editors whose vandalism also involved Commons uploads. The issues have been taken care of. I'm wondering if there is a tool or script available that would allow an admin to check if vandals such as these might also be vandalizing the other wikis, short of checking the other wikis one by one. It would be a handy tool to have. — Maile (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at their contribs, then look at the links at the bottom of the page, "Global contributions" (example) -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:68.228.254.131

I'd like to have someone please look at this IPs talk page. It's being used rudely and inappropriately. This is a blocked user that appears to have something going on right now in their life and appears to be using it as stress reliever. This is UsefulWikipedia (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked three years ago for disruptive editing. A habit included redirecting the sandbox and just about anything else they could get their hands on. I've been observing this editor for almost five years or so (since we crossed paths on 2008 Chino Hills earthquake) and the same odd redirect habit has been used by the IP. Dawnseeker2000 03:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Transparent image hack

I came across a strange (at least to me) hack/spam on Palawan. Somehow a transparent image is being inserted into the "website" portion of the infobox. This image is enlarged to occupy most of the screen and links to the GNAA website. I know this isn't exactly the right place to report this problem, but I don't know how to resolve it and don't know the right place to discuss it. Thanks for any help/insight. Tote hughes (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tote hughes: This may be due to some vandalism which we know occurred earlier today. It was promptly fixed but sometimes things are cached and you may need to bypass your cache to get the latest version of the page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Your solution worked. Sorry for the noob. Tote hughes (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It's reports like this that sometimes help us become aware of the vandalism, which can be quite obscure, so thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Pls enlighten what does this message means?

Can someone pls enlighten what does this message means? Am I being accused of being a vandal?Jjaey (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Message appeared in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

Dervinlwj (talk • contribs • logs • filter log • block log) – vandalism ([9]). Suspected sockpuppet of Jjaey (talk · contribs). 2002:6F43:C4F1:0:0:0:6F43:C4F1 (talk)

Jjaey, I wouldn't worry about it. Looks like an IP reported you for vandalism/suspected sock, which usually means that you reverted one of their edits, which was probably vandalism or unconstructive. Looks like it has been removed without action. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
kelapstick, thanks for your explanation. I always have this question of "Why people wants to vandalise?". They can make more meaningful use of their time and efforts. I have come to the point where I don't really want to revert someone's edits. Thanks again.Jjaey (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Two new accounts ... similar vandalism within 11 mins of each other

When something is obvious, how long do we wait before it becomes vandal and sockpuppet whack-a-mole?

Pyxis Solitary talk 13:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User report

NAC: This is a waste of time. --Tarage (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2017 (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.

Hey I want to report the user ( ZxxZxxZ ).

I saw some of his contributions and found some suspicious things.. it's obvious not suspicious though..

He removes things that offend his country ( iran ) and add lines that offend a country that is an enemy of his. From a qatari-owned news channel ( Knowing that qatar is an enemy of Saudi Arabia which means most likely it's fake news with the aim of offending Saudi Arabia) as his sources. For example

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202 Technical Peace (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've told him to not get politics into Wikipedia and so far, i did not receive a response . Technical Peace (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of his edits?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794850202

Read it please. Technical Peace (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a boomerang imo. Reporting editor is a SPA attempting to push a pro Saudi Arabian stance and the idea that you can tell another established editor "not to get politics into Wikipedia" is laughable. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2017 (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.

User Report2

Listing removed by a user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=801680318&oldid=801680219 Do not want to be involved in an edit war on the AIV page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamazanKhan1991 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I restored the report, without commenting on its merits. I see it's been subsequently declined. IPs shouldn't be doing that, and that particular IP user certainly shouldn't be doing that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding spaces

It seems to me that there's been an increase of edits (usually by IPs) adding a space to non-consequential places (such as after an item in a box, list, etc., in any event so you won't see it by eye in the article). Is this a thing? Is this worth reverting? (If this is a FAQ, just accept my apologies and point me to the right place, thank you). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly trying to get autoconfirm status? Red Jay (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that could be it (along with my selective perception of an increase). Thanks, Red Jay. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Except IP addresses cannot become autoconfirmed. Mz7 (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Allegation a user is a vandal

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.

User 'Rowan N. Martin' is a malicious editor. i know the person personally, away from wikipedia. I was friends with him for several years and so i know what hes up too as in the past he told me of his attempts to alter wikipages and of his agenda.

I'll explain: You'll see from their contributions that they are only interested in adding content to wikipages about a particular person, about a particular twitter account, notably one that doesn't even exist. The person Rowan N. Martin keeps writing about is his friend. His friend is is a fake anonymous member that for many years has been attempting to cash in on the anonymous movement by posing as an anonymous member on social media sites and falsely linking themselves to the founding of anonymous group & the 4chan website so as to get a rep and fans which are then steered towards the persons website which is intended to make them money.

User 'Rowan N. Martin' as i say is friends with the person hes trying to promote and he is also publicly closely linked to the person hes trying to promote.

Rowan N. Martin is himself trying to get a rep and fame and he is attempting to do so by spreading false information on social media sites and wikipedia about his friend to help make his friend famous as in doing so will intern get himself a rep/fame as he is publicly closely linked to the person he is promoting.

As i say i know Rowan N. Martin personally away from wikipedia as well as his friend hes promoting. As i say in the past Rowan N. Martin told me of his attempts to alter wiki pages in line with his agenda.

The user needs to be blocked/banned but obliviously you cant do that just because i make allegations against him but is there maybe something else that could be done about this malicious user, maybe flag them as suspicious, put a watch on their account. HardeeHar (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@HardeeHar: This is not the place for this type of report. This page is for discussions of the workings of the AIV page, which is itself only for reports of obvious and persistent vandalism that require little to no research to verify and act upon. Take this to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents page, but note that if and when you do, you must notify the editor that you are discussing them there. We do not accept "anonymous" claims of misbehavior. General Ization Talk 17:39, 31 December 2017 (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.

Vandalism and adding of bias and unconfirmed data to kshmr page

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.

User https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anmolbhat

Has been repeatedly adding biased and unconfirmed info the the career se ction of KSHMR, changing descriptions to discredit some of kshmrs collaborators as having no involvement in their songs. Please investigate immediately. This vandalism is not only based off of mere rumours byt could also be damaging to the reputation of DVBBS, and other collaborating artists discredited in the edits. Thank you for your time. Amy wamey (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amy wamey: Anmolbhat appears to have tried to explain to you the difference between co-production and 'ghost production', which is the essence of their edits at KSHMR. "an amendment to the agreement ... allows Borgeous to sign with Spinnin’ Records and disallows KSHMR from receiving any credit on recordings released under Borgeous’ name … otherwise known as ghost production." It appears that you are actually the one placing KSHMR in danger of violating this contract by misrepresenting that KSHMR co-produced this work. (Also, please note that this is not the page for this type of report.) General Ization Talk 20:10, 2 January 2018 (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.

Warning IP Users

How, exactly, would one go about warning a misbehaving user who doesn't have an account here and doesn't read the Talk pages? Honest question, so I can get on with doing so before I request the block (I will have to request it, because that misbehavior is not going to change). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whcernan (talk • contribs)

@Whcernan: - You would use the warning templates found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, generally starting at level 1 (except for the most egregious vandalism). The IP user will still get a notification that they have new messages. The ball is then in their court - to ignore the warnings and earn a block, or to stop. After the level 4 or 4im warning, report them at WP:AIV. There are some tools, such as Twinkle that make a lot of this much easier. SQLQuery me! 02:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry!

I see I just screwed up the formatting of my report--apologies, and didn't want to go back and add signature in case it would further screw up formatting. Thank you Helperbot for sorting out my report. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No reaction about vandalism in wrestler biographies

There is since months a mobile IP from Norway vandalising wrestler biographies, deleting things, spreading false informations (for example putting wrestlers in the Impact promotion that aren't) and so on. Currently Special:Contributions/176.11.20.198, former IPs were for example Special:Contributions/185.176.244.76 Special:Contributions/185.176.244.73. The vandalism is clearly on purpose and he is very active since months. While his vandalism gets at least in some bigger articles (example [10]) usually quickly reversed, he can with his continuing activity easily vandalise the articles that aren't watched. Unfortunately my reports are ignored since it seemingly seen as a minor problem, but it is draining to follow him to the articles over months. What shall I do? --78.51.177.67 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Spaces between reports

Does anyone else think it would make everyone's lives easier to add spaces (ie. a single space gap) between each individual report? ceranthor 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the bullets do the job.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Given the number of edit conflicts I get on this page, anything that might reduce them would be welcome.
I am not sure how much impact it would have, or whether I have misunderstood it, but Wikipedia:Avoiding edit-conflicts#Using reply-separators states "In a dialogue, such as for a talk-page or project-page discussion, edit-conflicts can be reduced by separating various replies by a reply-separator line. Any text could be used, even a blank line"
If a blank line reduces edit conflicts, it would be very beneficial. - Arjayay (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree. ceranthor 17:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot to clear stale reports

Since more reports of AIV backlogs are making their way to WP:AN, I thought it worth bringing up here the suggestion that we get the bot to clear stale reports that have not been actioned. I'd suggest 4 or 5 hours on the off chance, which will give time for multiple admins to review in case a stale vandal starts up again. This of course would not prevent administrators from clearing declined reports manually at their discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd prefer people clearing manually since that ensures that someone has at least glanced at the report before declining as stale. -- Luk talk 16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
If a report has been here for more than a few hours, I consider it to have been declined be default. Blocking without ongoing disruption would be against the blocking policy, and if the disruption continues, I am more than positive it will be back here within seconds. Having the bot clear it would stop giving people the false impression that AIV is backlogged (it never is, because virtually all the reports are reviewed quickly even if not commented on), and it would also hopefully help with the bad reports that we (frequently) get here by making it less likely for an account to sit there until an admin who agrees with the vandal patroller happens to pop by. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Just noting that the suggestion at AN seems to be 8-10 now which I have no problem with. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, 8-10 is conservative, but reasonable. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I have a small feeling it might be too conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even when AIV is considered backlogged, it's rare for any report to go all the way to 8-10 hours without being touched. If I were the developer creating this bot, I'd want to ensure that it would be used often enough to be meaningful. Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
6 hours? We have reports on AIV at the time I'm posting this that are that old, but that should give enough time that multiple admins should have looked at every report. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Six hours is enough IMHO. If it hasn't been actioned by that point, it's probably not going to be. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC).
Or we could ask someone to programme a bot to remove reports after they've been declined with one of the {{AIV}} templates, much like at RfPP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Depends on which template. I will sometimes ask questions if I don't find what's going on to be obvious. Probably a sign your report didn't belong at AIV to begin with however. SQLQuery me! 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The bot at RfPP, Cyberbot I, manages to avoid clearing reports marked with the question template. @Cyberpower678: is this someting you might be able to help us with? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I think 8 hours is the safest option. 10 is overkill, but if someone hasn't acted on it in 8 - it's not likely to be acted on. SQLQuery me! 02:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer 6, but I'm fine with 8 if we need to split the baby. I also support having the bot clear reports like Harry suggests. I don't see a reason it shouldn't do both. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I consider anything that hasn't been acted upon after a couple of hours as essentially declined and I routinely remove them myself (with an edit summary something like "listed for >6 hours without any admin willing to block"). Automatic removal of those reports sounds like a good idea to me. I would favor 6 hours at most. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I also prefer six, but I'd settle for eight if that's what's needed to make this happen. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC).
Six hours sounds good to me. Mz7 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion here on how to set up a bot for this task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Worth keeping archives of reports?

Per the above, I wanted to float the idea of such a bot maintaining some semblance of an archive (sort of like is seen as WP:PERM or WP:RFPP) to add a note at least about recently reported/declined requests. I noticed recently that a number of reports were declined, then manually wiped, then re-reported and acted upon later, despite no additional edits. That sort of thing would ideally be avoided. An archive need not be lengthy to be useful, perhaps no more than a week. I imagine there'd also be some interest in noting users that recently came off a block or on reports on users with only one or two edits/warnings to their talkpage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

BRFA Posted

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SQLBot_6 is up, I've got the bot ready to work. SQLQuery me! 01:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you SQL. There was just another backlog post at WP:AN today, so the timing couldn't be better. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Bot is now live. 200 edits of 15 days, whichever comes first. SQLQuery me! 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been a week

We're halfway thru the trial. Any concerns or complaints? SQLQuery me! 04:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

One week later... LGTM; even fixed a mistake from a new user earlier today. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice! Tomorrow's the end of the trial period, the bot should automagically de-activate sometime around 4pm EST. SQLQuery me! 20:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Bot is now disabled pending approval by BAG, or a request for further trial. SQLQuery me! 05:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Missed updating here - bot is approved and running. SQLQuery me! 21:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Report removed without explanation

I reported a spammer here:[11]

...and my report was removed without comment here:[12]

Even if my report was completely wrong, shouldn't I get a reason why it was removed? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Ronhjones: who did the clearing, but I'll say that while I do think only three hours without inaction or comment before removal is a tad overeager (per above), the page was severely cluttered before (mostly my fault). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like my bad. I must have missed it as there were plenty of declined items before and after it. Also part of the problem is that the page flags a backlog even when the report has been declined, so it's useful not to leave declined ones too long - looks like we could do with any new bot removing declined reports as well. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! If you do end up with a new bot removing declined reports, could it also notify the filer? It is a bit inconvenient going through the history to find a report that has disappeared. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe bot sorting into a third heading called "declined", to keep the open/declined separate. That way it would only show a backlog if there is a backlog in the open requests, but the declined requests can stay for an appropriate period of time (what does the RFPP bot do, it doesn't seem consistent). --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess this is kind of/more related to the bot section above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Neat idea. Perhaps once SQLBot is approved and we get auto-clearing after 6 hours, we can assess the needs/desires then. I imagine twinkle/huggle/stiki/other bots would need to be rewritten, although I suppose putting them in a {{cot}} up top wouldn't be the end of the world. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, I had written before I realized that y'all were working on a bot, but yeah it might be an idea to look at afterwards. Since there are significantly more reports daily than RFPP, it might be a good idea to separate. I will keep an eye out for the discussion once the bot is operating. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User with history of unconstructive edits over the long term

It seems that the user Cck1988 has a history of making unconstructive edits over the long term. The user's talk page is littered with warnings, but since Cck1988 doesn't seem to ever stick around for long, they eventually get out of date. This user had been on Wikipedia since 2008. That all said, since not all of the edits fit the bill of "obvious vandalism," I would be interested in having an administrator take a look as well and decide whether this person should be blocked. Thanks. Master of Time (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Trying to reduce (some) vandalism at its source

I'm working with Fairfax County Public Schools Network Security to try and help them identify users who have been vandalizing Wikipedia pages to varying degrees of severity. I figure that if they can identify the specific culprits it might be possible to engage them in constructive dialog with a view to at least reducing some of the more egregious behavior.

I'm told that FCPS use NAT and so although Wikipedia reports anonymous edits from IP addresses in the block 151.188.105.0 - 151.188.105.255, those addresses do not track back to individual users, only to NAT devices, behind which there may be dozens or even hundreds of users. However, if I can provide FCPS Security with date/time stamp *and* port information from individual acts of vandalism they might be able to identify the logged user responsible.

The date/time stamp info is readily accessible from Wikipedia reports but I cannot determine whether port information is collected and available to someone like me (occasional editor trying to do his bit to help keep Wikipedia free of vandalism).

Grateful for any thoughts/pointers from anyone, Peter aka AncientBrit (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I totally understand, but here's what I can suggest: When you want to see the contributions of a particular IP address, Search User:151.188.105.255 (or whatever the IP address is) and that should bring you to their User Contributions page. Then you'll be able to see the time-stamped list of edits they have made. Does this help at all PeterBrooks? Bkissin (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Bkissin - You understood correctly, I think, and I did explore that (and a few other bits besides, such as listing all the anonymous edits from the block of assigned IP addresses to see if there is/was a pattern of behavior, using [Contributions for 151.188.0.0/16] - had to do this link as external since I couldn't seem to get it to work internally). The key datum appears to be the source port of the anonymous editor; coupled with the date/time stamp (even rounded as the time stamp is) it might be possible for Security to determine who was logged in and where, and start a dialog. It would probably take someone with Level III Support knowledge, if such a thing exists in Wikipedia's organizational structure, to determine whether port info is even received from FCPS NAT devices. AncientBrit (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't store this information, even at checkuser level. Only some ninja-level Foundation sysop could possibly find this out from the server logs, and that's not going to happen. It's possible that if their proxies provide XFF headers we could find an underlying, ie pre-NAT, IP address but that's not guaranteed (or even likely). Really though, if you provide the precise date/time and the destination a school security team should be able to figure it out. Alternatively, to prevent vandalism, it's usually quite easy to just apply a schoolblock. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a shame, but thanks for the feedback. I saw that a schoolblock had been applied three times at least and that seemed a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I don't know how useful the rounded time stamp would be, given that the assigned block is so large - there could be tens of thousands of users logged in during any given time period and I don't know how I could obtain finer grain from Wikipedia reports. AncientBrit (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The thing about schoolblocks and getting individual students sanctioned, morality aside, is that there will always be another student to be sanctioned. The precise timestamp for any edit is available from the API. There's some fancy link for it, but it's visible if you install WP:POPUPS in your preferences->gadgets. I don't know whether a school would normally allow direct SSL connections, but if they can view the traffic the HTTP query should be fairly distinctive. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know that about the API - I'll follow up, and thank you. Morality of sanctions notwithstanding (and since the vandalism might come under the heading of criminal activity at both state and federal level, which might trump other considerations), making it known that a school district's security team can spot individual students' malicious activity might be just sufficient a deterrent to reduce or even prevent vandalism in future. It would certainly mean that some editors wouldn't have to waste time in reversions that could more profitably be spent on other activities. It's ironic that some teachers deprecate the use of Wikipedia by students because it is tainted with inaccurate or false information when some of that taint arises from the students themselves... AncientBrit (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Unclear Instructions

I was going to report persistent vandalism of a couple of pages, but the instructions and examples provided here are so unclear to me that I am afraid I would end up reporting myself as a vandal by mistake.

Mark W. Miller (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mark W. Miller: Personally, I would recommend using Twinkle to do it. Go to your preferences, Gadgets, and its the sixth item from the bottom under Browsing. Then you can report users through a link on their userpage. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Compassionate727: I clicked on the box next to Twinkle. However, the IP addresses used by the vandals change more-or-less daily. I doubt reporting the IP addresses would do any good.

Mark W. Miller (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mark W. Miller: In that case, the best course of action is to request page protection at WP:RFPP. You can also do this through Twinkle, by navigating to the page in question. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
When I was a lad, we had to carry out warning templates on our backs, through the snow, going uphill both ways. Then twinkle came along.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct venue to report long-term, IP-hopping vandal?

There is a long-term vandal who edits using a series of IP's within a range. I reported it here, but the report was automatically removed after six hours of inaction. Is there a better venue for reporting, such as ANI? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • ANI might be better. Doing rangeblocks requires a fair bit of specialised knowledge of how IP addresses work and a lot of admins avoid them as a result. They sometimes need checkusers to verify that there won't be any collateral damage to registered users as well. Hut 8.5 10:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Tweaking the header

So, I think the current AIV header is kind of messy and disorganized. I've been playing around with it in my userspace, and here are some of my thoughts on what I think an improved version could look like. The main feature is providing a more explanatory list of the most common reasons for why AIV reports are declined. The result is a slightly longer header, but I think it's worth it to convey clearer instructions and expectations. Mz7 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Exo

Hello, I don't know where to ask for help but I'm here to tell you that a page has been edited probably due to jealousy. In the 'List of fastest-selling product' in Wikipedia someone edited out Exo's achivements of being the fastest selling concert ticket artist worldwide. This is how it was before it was deleted: 2017 Concert (Korea)- EXO planet #4 - The ElyXiOn at the Gocheok Sky Dome sold out (42, 348 tickets) in 0.2 seconds.

2015 Concert (Korea) - EXO Planet #2 - The Exo'luxion Concert at the Olympic Gymnastics Arena sold out ( 67,040 tickets) in 0.4 seconds.

2014 Concert (Korea) - EXO Planet #1 - The Lost Planet Concert at the Olympic Gymnastics Arena sold out (42, 000 tickets) in 1.47 seconds.


I hope you can help to restore it and protect it better. LEGENDexo (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@LEGENDexo: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the place to report users who continue to engage in deliberate attempts to damage the site after being sufficiently warned. The user who removed the material gave the reason that the sources cited failed our reliable sourcing guidelines and that some of them did not even properly support the material anyway. The extra material's removal was not vandalism. Go to the article's talk page (Talk:List of fastest-selling products) with the assumption of good faith for people you disagree with and discuss the matter there. Remember that we do not tolerate zealotry of any kind, regardless of the cause. Don't try to cite that point at others to get your way, either (other users are not named after the sole focus of their edits). What you need to do is provide professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of Exo (possibly even independent of K-Pop in general) that recognize their ticket sales as fastest selling products. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ping the vandal?

Could this please {{ping}} the alleged abuser so he/she knows the alarm has been tripped? If you don't want to warn intentional vandals, then maybe just ping registered editors or admin editors?—GoldRingChip 13:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say that notification would be counterproductive per WP:DENY. I would hope that an established editor or administrator never find their names listed on this page. AIV is only for cases that are obviously bad-faith and where blocking would be uncontroversial. If the disruption is not obvious, or if it is plausible that the edits are good-faith, then we're pretty good about directing users to other forums like WP:ANI that do require notification of the alleged abuser. Mz7 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Change the header to add an exception to bullet point 2?

Bullet point 2 currently reads: "The user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior." I think we should include a note that WP:VOAs are an exception to that. Maybe "The user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior, or is a vandalism-only account"? Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure this is needed. I think part of the reason why it doesn't say that is because this noticeboard gets backlogged really easily. It would be a nightmare if everyone reported every registered account that commits vandalism without taking the time to leave a warning first (many vandals do stop after being warned). Unless the vandalism is really egregious or unusually fast-paced, I think an effort should be made to give warnings even to brand new user accounts, just so that AIV remains for the most urgent issues. This leads to a somewhat challenging problem though, when VOAs do get reported at AIV without warnings. I've blocked accounts citing WP:VOA where nominally I should have declined the AIV report with {{AIV|nesw}} ("no edits since being warned"), and I've also declined as "no edits since being warned" in cases where it would have been within discretion to block citing WP:VOA. Maybe it should be something like, Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s) to stop their disruptive behavior. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good to me. Maybe "egregious cases" could also be linked to WP:VOA. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Enterprisey:  Done [13]. I left out the link to WP:VOA because I don't want to give the impression that all VOAs are considered "egregious cases". Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandalizing the page of Naya Pakistan

The user BukhariSaeed is arbitrarily deleting mass amounts of content on the page of Naya Pakistan for no discernible reason, while malevolently stating 'vandalism' under his own own notes for the arbitrary wiping of the page. LissanX (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@LissanX: First of all, existing content of article is not reliable thats why i reverted edits. On the other hand i found some vandalisms: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Thanks.— Bukhari (Talk!) 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

SQLBot Duration change

Based on feedback on my talkpage, I have changed the duration for SQLBot to remove stale reports. An explanation can be found here: User:SQL/AIVStale. Basically, as active admins approach 40, the time will stretch to 8 hours. As active admins approach 80, the time will shrink to 4 hours. SQLBot will link to that explanation in each edit summary, and will say in the edit summary what the present time limit in hours is. SQLQuery me! 11:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Admin needed in T30 heavy tank

T30 needs an expert. It also may need a secutrity check for vandilisam from an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.116.143 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

AIV Analysis Tool

I'm testing a new/faster AIV analysis tool - toolforge:aivanalysis. There are some known issues. Feedback is always welcome! SQLQuery me! 20:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SQL, this is pretty neat. I can imagine this being helpful in a number ways, least of all being RfA! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Broad stats for all editors > 5 reports, if anyone's interested - User:SQL/AIVAStats. SQLQuery me! 19:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Spacing between reports for readability

I may have brought this up before, but I still think it's worth discussing. Is there any way we can change the formatting of automated reports to place more space in between listings for readability? It seems like such a minor detail, but it can get irritating to try and differentiate between listings when there are multiple responses per report. It's obviously not a huge difference, but if it's not too technically demanding, I would be curious if other people find this worth developing. ceranthor 17:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

IPvandal needs fixing

The template {{IPvandal|IP address}} needs to be fixed, it currently redirects to wiki/User:*IPAddress* and not wiki/Special:Contributions/*IPAddress*

Example: {{IPvandal|217.23.230.72}} links to User:217.23.230.72 instead of Special:Contributions/217.23.230.72

--2A01:CB19:8667:5200:69C1:8C2F:7BFA:4CAC (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't – at least not exclusively. It links to many things: {{IPvandal|127.0.0.1}} results in 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Richard 08:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What's with the bot?

What's the point of taking the time to report people if the report is simply removed because it's "stale"? After only 4 hours. Where is the discussion on the use of such a bot? Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Read a few posts above this. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/Archive_15&oldid=1136425701"