Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

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!

1. The edits of the user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam.
2. Except for egregious cases, the user must have been given enough warning(s).
3. 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.
4. 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). ~~~~
5. Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
6. 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; the guidelines above are in place to help administrators focus on the most urgent issues. Before notifying administrators at another forum about a backlog on this page, consider whether the remaining reports are actionable. 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 04:18 on 4 August 2025 (UTC). if it is out of date.

Reports

Bot-reported

• Ali.arabi.moghadam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1319 (LTA 1319, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• 205.137.254.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1086 three times in the last 5 minutes (Disruptive edit summaries, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

User-reported

• 79.83.33.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) While politely discussing in a discussion page with another user, another user appeared, stating "Typical diparma, she presumptuously discusses primary sources (=original research) without giving proper references (=bad original research) so we have to believe her and take her word for it (though she has been proved guilty of misquoting sources) or ask her endlessly for precise citations (who wrote this, in which book, at which page etc etc)". I take this as an insult, judging my way of operating in an incorrect way, and judging my person is even more incorrect. It is not the first time an anonymous user insulted me. As far as you (in general) insult my edits, I can deal with it, I stand it, I can surpass, but not when you insult me. - MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Warned user. asilvering (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Since when warning a user against doing original research is considered as vandalism? 79.83.33.246 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  User has already been warned by several people about problems in her way of contributing and disregard of verifiability [1], but continues to ignore basic principles. 79.83.33.246 (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  IP, is that how you would characterize what you said in that comment? Just a simple warning? Nothing else? -- asilvering (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  My comment didn't seem very civil, sure. Calling it an insult is mere exaggeration. How you would characterize reporting me as a vandal, then? 79.83.33.246 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's an exaggeration to call it an insult; if you'd said it after being warned I would have blocked. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable to report personal attacks to this board. Please urgently change your approach. Wikipedia editing requires collaboration and civility. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Then, how do you tell someone to stop doing original research and to carefully source their assertions (when one has already been told several gimes by several users) in a "civil" way? I could then edit my "insulting" message while keeping the intended goal. 79.83.33.246 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCONDUCT. -- asilvering (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Easy said. In the end it means that one is entitled to ignore verifiability and WP:NOR because criticizing them for doing so would be too person-oriented and therefore 'insulting'. But this rule applies only when convenient. 79.83.33.246 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• 2600:8802:3712:5100:989:55F0:6AF6:93F4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On :Trick, Don't Kill My Vibe (diff): vandalism after final warning. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. asilvering (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Asilvering as well as this /64. Izno (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Izno on this one I disagree; I'm not terribly impressed by a jump straight to the big warnings. But I wouldn't make a fuss if you thought a block was warranted. -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm seeing gentle warnings in February ramping up to a short block in March. Then a uw1 in mid July, a uw2 a couple days later, a CB revert notice another couple days later. A new uw1 a day after, Binksternet's uw1 and uw3 on 28 July. A uw1welcome on 2 August. Uw-multiple the same day. A uw-ew today with a funny response "That's cap". I'll issue a block here, that's 8 warnings in 2-3 weeks. Izno (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• Muuseaadan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Making the same disruptive edits after warnings. All of the user's edits are erasing mentions of Jubland, replacing "region" with "state", and changing capitals to Garbahaarreey (including towns?). Wowzers122 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• Offensive, misleading, disruptive, or promotional (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. weird username mocking wiki policies. Plasticwonder (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. asilvering (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• 202.57.58.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On 2GO Group (diff): Obvious block evasion of 2gocorporate (talk · contribs); see blocked user's diff, then this IP's diff. tony 02:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  That block was issued as a soft block expecting a rename. I am not sure a block evasion block would be appropriate here. What might strike an admin's fancy is a promo block or a page protection. Izno (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Izno that makes sense, thank you. For future reference, if I come across a situation where a promo block might be appropriate, where would I go to discuss that? COI/N? tony 02:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  Some admins will take it here, which is why I framed my response the way I did. Otherwise you can request blocks at WP:ANI. COIN doesn't tend to issue blocks IIRC but they could probably help sort out the page if the content isn't reverted in full. Izno (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  Gotcha -- thank you :) --tony 02:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• 2600:1700:14B0:2980:3055:F08E:7E99:495E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Anglican Province of America: vandalism after final warning. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  Partialed given the years-long activity on the /64. Izno (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• 2409:4063:4D0A:36CC:0:0:3BC9:E309 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Talk:Flow (2024 film): Continues to vandalize articles while being blocked from two pages for 1 year. Areaseven (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

  The wide page block isn't pertinent to this case. Izno (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• 174.67.216.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On List of Ellen's Game of Games episodes (diff): vandalism after final warning. Repeated vandalism through insertion of factually incorrect information; IP was blocked previously for the same behavior on other articles. Yiosie 2356 04:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
• 202.162.204.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Block evading proxy, see Special:Contributions/23.162.200.217. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)