| Revision as of 22:49, 30 July 2009 editEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →User-reported← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:51, 30 July 2009 edit undoEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →User-reportedNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| **** But -- there have been multiple warnings, and multiple vandalizing edits since most recent warnings, including vandal edits (again) to a bio of a living person which I understood calls for special sensitivity. The IP has made three (at least) vandal edits since it was last blocked. A large percentage of its edits have been vandal edits. None of its edits has ever had a citation, so I don't even know if its other edits are valid. Doesn't that deserve another block?--] (]) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | **** But -- there have been multiple warnings, and multiple vandalizing edits since most recent warnings, including vandal edits (again) to a bio of a living person which I understood calls for special sensitivity. The IP has made three (at least) vandal edits since it was last blocked. A large percentage of its edits have been vandal edits. None of its edits has ever had a citation, so I don't even know if its other edits are valid. Doesn't that deserve another block?--] (]) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ***** {{AIV|np}} Regardless, the IP's last vandalism edit was made ''19 hours'' '''before''' it had even been issued the you just gave it. — ] (]) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | ***** {{AIV|np}} Regardless, the IP's last vandalism edit was made ''19 hours'' '''before''' it had even been issued the you just gave it. — ] (]) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ******Understood, but my understanding from ] is that "Users who vandalize Misplaced Pages repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported ... and administrators may block them" The guideline ''does not'' mandate the level of warning. In fact, it says "Note that warnings are not always required; accounts whose main ... use is obvious vandalism ... may be blocked without warning." This user was warned twice, blocked once, and has now made three more vandal edits that are obviously vandal edits. I had thought that would warrant another block.--] (]) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | ******Understood, but my understanding from ] is that "Users who vandalize Misplaced Pages repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported ... and administrators may block them" The guideline ''does not'' mandate the level of warning. In fact, it says "Note that warnings are not always required; accounts whose main ... use is obvious vandalism ... may be blocked without warning." This user was warned twice, blocked once, and has now made three more vandal edits that are obviously vandal edits. I had thought that would warrant another block. Let's do it not to punish, but to prevent further edits of that nature, especially given that the edits often are to the bio of a living person.--] (]) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:51, 30 July 2009
| 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 | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
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 10:44 on 4 January 2025 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page if it is out of date.
Alerts
Bot-reported
- Nalinsharma1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
User-reported
- Mrbean1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User ceaselessly adds fan fiction, and random made up info into Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Blackout (Transformers). He even keeps a mirror of the RotF article in his user page, which he is seemingly using as a temporary target for his edits. When question about doing it he just said "he felt like it". Also, he's suspected of being a sock puppet of user Plo Koon 1, with similar behaviour patterns in edited articles, info added, and mindless responses. --uKER (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. If you think this user may be a sockpuppet, go to WP:SPI \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- 98.15.150.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistent repeat vandal.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: User is in the category: Shared IP addresses. HBC AIV helperbot3 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- But -- there have been multiple warnings, and multiple vandalizing edits since most recent warnings, including vandal edits (again) to a bio of a living person which I understood calls for special sensitivity. The IP has made three (at least) vandal edits since it was last blocked. A large percentage of its edits have been vandal edits. None of its edits has ever had a citation, so I don't even know if its other edits are valid. Doesn't that deserve another block?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Blocks are preventative, not intended to be used as punishment. Regardless, the IP's last vandalism edit was made 19 hours before it had even been issued the level 2 warning you just gave it. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Understood, but my understanding from Misplaced Pages:Vandalism is that "Users who vandalize Misplaced Pages repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported ... and administrators may block them" The guideline does not mandate the level of warning. In fact, it says "Note that warnings are not always required; accounts whose main ... use is obvious vandalism ... may be blocked without warning." This user was warned twice, blocked once, and has now made three more vandal edits that are obviously vandal edits. I had thought that would warrant another block. Let's do it not to punish, but to prevent further edits of that nature, especially given that the edits often are to the bio of a living person.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- But -- there have been multiple warnings, and multiple vandalizing edits since most recent warnings, including vandal edits (again) to a bio of a living person which I understood calls for special sensitivity. The IP has made three (at least) vandal edits since it was last blocked. A large percentage of its edits have been vandal edits. None of its edits has ever had a citation, so I don't even know if its other edits are valid. Doesn't that deserve another block?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: User is in the category: Shared IP addresses. HBC AIV helperbot3 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)