Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

Vandalism in progress

---

This page is to report vandals, spammers, and usernames that violate the username policy, to administrators for blocking.

To better help administrators, please use the {{vandal}} template if the vandal has an account or the {{ipvandal}} template if it is an IP address.

• If a report has not been replied to in a reasonable amount of time, and an immediate response is required to prevent ongoing harm or vandalism to the project, ping administrators in the IRC #wikipedia-simple ^connect channel using !admin@simplewiki or in the Discord channel #simple-english-wikipedia using @SimpleEnglishAdmins

Examples:

• {{vandal|Bad user}} gives "Bad user (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)"
• {{ipvandal|192.0.2.16}} gives "192.0.2.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)"

Reporting bad usernames? Try using {{subst:UsernameWarn}} on their talk pages for those who just need a warning.

Clear all reports

Please add new reports at the bottom.

Current alerts

User-reported

• Kat885 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Adding wrong information into pages, attacking editors, disruptively moving their talk page. The list goes on. Please extend to indefinite. --IWI (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  Blocked for a day. Let's see what their edits look like, afterwards.--Eptalon (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  I think we should have a zero tolerance policy for persistent attacks on our users. The account is evidently for vandalism only. I think they have made it pretty clear that they do not want to build an encyclopedia or work collaboratively, and it is pretty obvious exactly what they will do when their block expires. --IWI (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  The block is a pretty short block. When their block expires, and they continue, the next block will be longer. The blocking admin will see there was another block and adapt the time accordingly.--Eptalon (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  Note that the user had a break between 24 and 28 December. Attitude towards building an encyclopedia seems similar. Here's an edit on 24 December. Here's an edit on 28 December. The only two edits they have made on articles were reverted by me for wrong information - but they were in good faith, it seems. However, I agree with IWI, I doubt that the user's attitude towards building an encyclopedia will change in 24 hrs time... Belwine • 💬 • 📜 16:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  Made the comment before seeing the comment above mine. I understand the response :) Belwine • 💬 • 📜 16:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  In my view, if they continue after a 24hr block, it should be indefinite, not just longer. Admins do not need to waste further time on this vandal after that point. --IWI (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  @ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thanks for wanting to make things easier on the admins. However, we have procedures we have to follow. Even beyond that, sometimes admins will choose to try to work with a new editor rather than just indef them. Sometimes that is done when a new user sees not to understand the rules of editing here; if we can get them to understand about cooperatively building an encyclopedia, sometimes we get a good editor out of it. The reason we do longer and longer blocks is to give the user time to understand that bad behavior really will not be tolerated long term. If they don't get that message, then an admin will block them when they feel it's time. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Auntof6: I respect the decisions admins take - they have been elected to do so. It's a matter of how long you can assume good faith with someone vandalising pages and attacking other users. In my view, after a number of warnings, that assumption runs out. --IWI (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
  Without worring too much about long-term abuse there's also another consideration: The next time the user shows bad behaviour, likely another admin will take the decision. The admins are a team.--Eptalon (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  The user has immediatley resumed vandalising by making a bad page. --IWI (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  That being said... The user's attitude has changed slightly. The user left a comment on my talk page "I Will No Longer Do Vandalism and stop Users From Deleting Articles Unless They Have Little or no Meanings.", which, despite not making much sense, does sound like they want to make constructive edits in the future. We will see how this user behaves over the coming hours/days. Belwine • 💬 • 📜 19:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  Let's hope they start making a constructive change to the encyclopedia, that would be the most ideal outcome. Thus far we have not seen any. --IWI (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Kat885 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. No constructive changes; enough is enough. --IWI (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  As I did the last block, I leave this to another admin.--Eptalon (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  They're making personal attacks again, by threatening me with a block. J991 17:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  Like I said, enough is enough. Our users should not have to put up with this abuse, not to mention the persistent vandalism. --IWI (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  Blocked indef. WP:CIR applies here. Chenzw  Talk  17:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Katolicimici (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. LTA (See log of emails sent) . Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• 2A02:A213:8803:880:DD58:BE1E:F7C4:ED7C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Mia Malkova (diff):. Same behaviour as User:87.195.94.238: same target, same edit. Blocked in the English Wikipedia for making the same edits. --
• Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 13:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally Special:Contributions/2a02:a213:8803:880:cdae:6d5a:7083:2f38 as well. The editor is jumping between IPs. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 13:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Clear block evasion x2. Should be indefinite block imo. This editor did not respond to any warnings that me or any other edits made on the original IP. Belwine • 💬 • 📜 13:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)