Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
Appearance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VIP)
Report active, obvious, and persistent vandals and spammers here.
Before reporting, read the spam and vandalism pages, as well as the AIV guide. To submit, edit this page and follow the instructions at the top of the "User-reported" section. For other issues, file a request for administrator attention.
Important!
- 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- Reports of sockpuppetry should be made at Wikipedia: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.
This page was last updated at 00:50 on 6 February 2025 (UTC).
if it is out of date.
![]() | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by HBC AIV helperbot14 (talk) when the backlog is cleared. |
Reports
[edit]- 209.188.72.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1292 (LTA 1292, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- 188.80.124.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including: Replacing Images 1 2 All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. TigerShark (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- 24.252.217.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On WebP: account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. Swearing and making death threats in article
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebP&oldid=1218248716
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebP&oldid=1007486305. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Question: is this the correct IP? Doesn't seem to have edited since November. TigerShark (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- OK looks like there was two IP that made the edit. The first wish unspeakable things to WebP devs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebP&diff=next&oldid=1217017929
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebP&oldid=1007486305 is another vandal. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- 37.60.84.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Rushden & Diamonds F.C.: Vandalism-only I.P editor. Flat Out (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- 2600:100c:b21c:f650:b5c3:189b:9168:f23 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User made an edit that basically insulted an editor but user also quickly removed the insult part. [1]. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- 99.46.139.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP making a huge number of rapid edits - 50 in the last 25 min - adding/removing categories and country of origin of TV shows. None with edit summaries, none with any sources that I saw. Many reverted, not just by me. 2nd-level warning given. Does this warrant a brief block to get user's attention? If not, thank you anyway, Jessicapierce (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)