Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:43, 5 April 2013 editHBC AIV helperbot7 (talk \| contribs)253,005 editsm 1 user left. rm Iomapcopyright (blocked indef by De728631 ).← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:49, 5 April 2013 edit undoHHH Pedrigree (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users45,615 edits →User-reported Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:::{{AIV\|n}} Presumably if Theroadislong has seen promotional editing then it would have been easy for him/her to provide at least one diff, whereas for someone else to start searching from scratch takes much more time and trouble. Nevertheless, I have checked a 50% sample of the user's edits. Many of them are not remotely promotional. Those that were promotional were no doubt made in good faith. The user has made no article edits since being told there is a problem, and has posted on a talk page to discuss the issues involved. This is not the right moment for administrative action against him/her, which will become appropriate only if and when the promotional editing continues ''after'' suitable warnings and explanation. ] (]) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)		:::{{AIV\|n}} Presumably if Theroadislong has seen promotional editing then it would have been easy for him/her to provide at least one diff, whereas for someone else to start searching from scratch takes much more time and trouble. Nevertheless, I have checked a 50% sample of the user's edits. Many of them are not remotely promotional. Those that were promotional were no doubt made in good faith. The user has made no article edits since being told there is a problem, and has posted on a talk page to discuss the issues involved. This is not the right moment for administrative action against him/her, which will become appropriate only if and when the promotional editing continues ''after'' suitable warnings and explanation. ] (]) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::I do try and assume good faith, but on every article that the user has edited, they have added the same external link to their own website. I won't revert them again. ] (]) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)		::::I do try and assume good faith, but on every article that the user has edited, they have added the same external link to their own website. I won't revert them again. ] (]) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

			* {{Vandal\|DJ8946}} This user have created some articles that were deleted by afd per non notability. Also, he created ]. Me and other user redirected the article to Brodus Clay. We explain some times that the article isn't notable, but we can redirect the article to Brodus Clay. He reverted a lot of articles, near to the war edition, delete my messages from his talk page (no archive). We have tried to explain to him how Misplaced Pages works, but he don't pay attention. ] (]) 20:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:49, 5 April 2013

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Report active, obvious, and persistent vandals and spammers here. Shortcut

WP:AIV

Before reporting, read the spam and vandalism pages, as well as the AIV guide. To submit, edit this page and follow the instructions at the top of the "User-reported" section. For other issues, file a request for administrator attention.

Important!

The edits of the user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam.
Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s).
The warning(s) must have been given recently and there must be reasonable grounds to believe the user(s) will further disrupt the site in the immediate future.
If you decide that a report should be filed, place the following template at the bottom of the User-reported section:
- * {{Vandal|Example user or IP}} Your concise reason (e.g. vandalised past 4th warning). ~~~~
Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should be made at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Reports of sockpuppetry should be made at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations unless the connection between the accounts is obvious and disruption is recent and ongoing.

This noticeboard can grow and become backlogged. Stale reports are automatically cleared by MDanielsBot after 4–8 hours with no action.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

This page was last updated at 03:21 on 23 January 2025 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.

Reports

Bot-reported

2601:281:d57e:18c0:71f7:42c4:99e1:c813 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 614 five times in the last 5 minutes (Memes and vandalism trends (moomer slang + zoomer slang), details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Stale at this point. Izno (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
60.131.216.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1319 (LTA 1319, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

User-reported

Lacommun1cations (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – account is being used only for promotional purposes. Theroadislong (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: Can you provide a diff to support the claim of spam? All I see is an spa with possibly a COI but not link to a website and to the user name. Alexf 11:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Promoting Lymphoma Association, all edits are adding links to their website.Theroadislong (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Presumably if Theroadislong has seen promotional editing then it would have been easy for him/her to provide at least one diff, whereas for someone else to start searching from scratch takes much more time and trouble. Nevertheless, I have checked a 50% sample of the user's edits. Many of them are not remotely promotional. Those that were promotional were no doubt made in good faith. The user has made no article edits since being told there is a problem, and has posted on a talk page to discuss the issues involved. This is not the right moment for administrative action against him/her, which will become appropriate only if and when the promotional editing continues after suitable warnings and explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I do try and assume good faith, but on every article that the user has edited, they have added the same external link to their own website. I won't revert them again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

DJ8946 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user have created some articles that were deleted by afd per non notability. Also, he created The Funkadacyls. Me and other user redirected the article to Brodus Clay. We explain some times that the article isn't notable, but we can redirect the article to Brodus Clay. He reverted a lot of articles, near to the war edition, delete my messages from his talk page (no archive). We have tried to explain to him how Misplaced Pages works, but he don't pay attention. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 20:43, 5 April 2013 editHBC AIV helperbot7 (talk \| contribs)253,005 editsm 1 user left. rm Iomapcopyright (blocked indef by De728631 ).← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:49, 5 April 2013 edit undoHHH Pedrigree (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users45,615 edits →User-reported Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:::{{AIV\|n}} Presumably if Theroadislong has seen promotional editing then it would have been easy for him/her to provide at least one diff, whereas for someone else to start searching from scratch takes much more time and trouble. Nevertheless, I have checked a 50% sample of the user's edits. Many of them are not remotely promotional. Those that were promotional were no doubt made in good faith. The user has made no article edits since being told there is a problem, and has posted on a talk page to discuss the issues involved. This is not the right moment for administrative action against him/her, which will become appropriate only if and when the promotional editing continues ''after'' suitable warnings and explanation. ] (]) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)		:::{{AIV\|n}} Presumably if Theroadislong has seen promotional editing then it would have been easy for him/her to provide at least one diff, whereas for someone else to start searching from scratch takes much more time and trouble. Nevertheless, I have checked a 50% sample of the user's edits. Many of them are not remotely promotional. Those that were promotional were no doubt made in good faith. The user has made no article edits since being told there is a problem, and has posted on a talk page to discuss the issues involved. This is not the right moment for administrative action against him/her, which will become appropriate only if and when the promotional editing continues ''after'' suitable warnings and explanation. ] (]) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::I do try and assume good faith, but on every article that the user has edited, they have added the same external link to their own website. I won't revert them again. ] (]) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)		::::I do try and assume good faith, but on every article that the user has edited, they have added the same external link to their own website. I won't revert them again. ] (]) 14:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

			* {{Vandal\|DJ8946}} This user have created some articles that were deleted by afd per non notability. Also, he created ]. Me and other user redirected the article to Brodus Clay. We explain some times that the article isn't notable, but we can redirect the article to Brodus Clay. He reverted a lot of articles, near to the war edition, delete my messages from his talk page (no archive). We have tried to explain to him how Misplaced Pages works, but he don't pay attention. ] (]) 20:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)