Do you need to report an inappropriate username or an account with a username that blatantly violates Wikipedia'susername policy?File a username report.
Do you need help with resolving a dispute with another editor? SeeDispute resolution.
Do you need to report or discuss a policy violation or behavioral issue (such as an evasion of ablock, abuse of tools, or other incidents) on Wikipedia that requires administrator intervention?File an incident report.
OnWikipedia,vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior)deliberately intended toobstruct or defeat theproject's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
The maliciousremoval of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies ofneutral point of view (which does not meanno point of view),verifiability andno original research, is adeliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevantobscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimatelyblanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.
Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged towarn andeducate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually block only when multiple warnings have been issued).
Even if misguided, willfully againstconsensus, ordisruptive, anygood faith effort to improve the encyclopedia isnot vandalism. For example,edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism,even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user with auser warning template. Choose the template that most closely matches the behavior you are trying to correct.
Vandalism on Wikipedia usually falls into one or more of these categories:
Abuse of tags
Bad faith placing of non-content tags such as{{afd}},{{db}},{{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of{{policy}} and related tags.
Avoidant vandalism
Removing{{afd}},{{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. However, this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.
Edit summary vandalism
Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record (edit summaries cannot simply be "reverted" and requireadministrative action if they have to be removed from a page's history). Often combined with malicious account creation.
Format vandalism
Changing the formatting of a page unreasonably and maliciously. But many times, editors might just make an unintended mistake or are testing how the wikicode works. Sometimes it might be a bug in the Wikipedia software. Some changes to the format are not vandalism, but rather either good faith edits of editors who don't know the guidelines or simply a different opinion on how the format should look, in which case it is just a disputed edit.
Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by causing bad faith edits to go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists, recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title, use of the{{construction}} tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use ofsock puppets.
Hidden vandalism
Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing. This includes link vandalism, or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see.
Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal isnot considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.
Blanking that could be legitimate includes blanking all or part of abiography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living; blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good faith content removal,{{uw-test1}} or{{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should be used as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries.
Illegitimate page creation
Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. It also includespersonal attack pages (articles written to disparage the subject),hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages. There are many other types of pages that merit deletion, evenspeedy deletion, but which are not vandalism.New users sometimes create test pages containingnonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism; such pages can also be moved to become their sandbox or userpage. Pages on non-notable topics are not vandalism.Blatant advertising pages, andblatant POV pushes, are not vandalism, but frequently happen and often lead to editors being blocked. It's important that people creating inappropriate pages be given appropriate communication; even if they aren't willing to edit within our rules, they are more likely to go away quietly if they understand why their page has been deleted.
Illegitimate page lengthening
Adding very large (measured by the number ofbytes) amounts of bad faith content to a page so as to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make the page impossible to load on some computers without the browser or machine crashing. Adding large amounts of good faith content is not vandalism, though prior to doing so, one should consider if splitting a long page may be appropriate (seeWikipedia:Article size).
Image vandalism
Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though thatWikipedia is not censored and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value).
Link vandalism
Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling.
Malicious account creation
Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. For Wikipedia's policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, seeWikipedia:Username policy. See alsoWikipedia:Sock puppetry.
Changing the names of pages to disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate names. Onlyautoconfirmed or confirmed users can move pages. Because of this, vandals of this variety will often create "sleeper" accounts to gain autoconfirmed status.
Redirect vandalism
Redirecting or changing the target of redirect pages to other pages that are vandalism, nonsense, promotional, non-existent pages, or attack pages. This also applies when a redirect or its title is created only to disparage its subject. Pages that redirect to non-existent or deleted pages are also applied withG8.
Repeated uploading of copyrighted material
Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violateWikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action becomes vandalismonly if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.
Reverting to vandalism
Reverting edits to the latest revisions that are nonsense, promotional, personal attacks, and/or harassment (except for when done by mistake).
Silly vandalism
Addingprofanity,graffiti, orpatent nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages, etc. This is one of the most common forms of vandalism. However, the addition of random characters to pages is often characteristic of an editing test and, though impermissible, may not be malicious.
Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially.
Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (such as by making two bad edits and reverting only one), simultaneously usingmultiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Impersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address also constitutes subtle vandalism, but take care not to confuse this with appropriately correcting an unsigned edit made by another user. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "Rv vandalism" or similar in theedit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted.
Illegitimately removing or editing other users' comments, especially in closed discussions, or adding offensive comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism,internal spam, orharassment or apersonal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are alsopermitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages wasconsidered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
Template vandalism
Modifying the wiki language or text of atemplate in a harmful or disruptive manner. This is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds or thousands of pages, so they arepermanently protected from editing to prevent vandalism.
Although at times the following situations may be referred to colloquially as "vandalism", they are not usually considered vandalism within the context of Wikipedia. However, each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, it may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.
A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate in the belief that it is accurate, is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, remove it once you are certain it is inaccurate, and consider discussing its factuality with the user who has added it.
While intentionally adding nonsense to a page is a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g. there may be an error in thesyntax, particularly for Wikipedians who useEnglish as a second language). Also, connection errors, browser extensions, oredit conflicts can unintentionally produce the appearance of nonsense or malicious edits. In either case,assume good faith.
Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold and acknowledgesthe role of bold edits in reaching consensus.
Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies is prohibited, but is not vandalism unless the user does so maliciously or fails to heed warnings. It is at least as serious an issue as vandalism and persistent offenders will ultimately get blocked, but it is well worth spending time communicating clearly with those who violate copyright as they are far more likely to reform than vandals or spammers.
Some users cannot come to an agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus.Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such.Dispute resolution may help. See also:Tendentious editing.
Starting adeletion process in bad faith is disruptive editing, but is not vandalism. However, misusing deletion template messageswith no intention to start a deletion process is vandalism byabuse of tags.
In short, all vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism.
Theedit summary is important in that it helps other editors understand the purpose of your edit. Though its use is not required, it is strongly recommended, even for minor edits, and is considered properWikipedia etiquette. Even a brief edit summary is better than none. However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism.
Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. These users should be warned using the uw-test series ofuser warning templates, or by a talk page message including, if appropriate, a welcome and referral to theWikipedia sandbox, where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. Registered users can also create their own sandboxes as auser subpage. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message{{uw-selfrevert}}, on their talk page. Pages created as test edits outside of userspace may be deleted underspeedy deletion criterion G2. Editing tests are considered vandalism only when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings.
Editors are encouraged tobe bold. However, making edits toWikipedia policies and guidelines pages, such as this one, does require some knowledge of theconsensus on the issues. If people misjudge consensus, it would not be considered vandalism; rather, it would be an opportunity to discuss the matter with them, and help them understand the consensus.
Personal attacks and harassment are not allowed. While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently.
Inexperienced users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia's formatting and grammatical standards, such as how to create internal and/or external links or which words should be bolded or italicized, etc. Rather than label such users as vandals, just explain to them what the standard style would be for the issue at hand, perhaps pointing them towards the documentation atHow to edit a page, and the like.
Some users are not familiar withWikipedia's purpose or policies and may start editing it as if it were a different medium—such as a forum or blog—in a way that itappears as unproductive editing or borderline vandalism to experienced users. Although such edits can usually be reverted, it should not be treated as vandalism.
The neutral point of view policy is difficult for many of us to understand. Even Wikipedia veterans occasionally introduce material which is not ideal from anNPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected to a greater extent than we estimate by our beliefs. Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself.
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, perWikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
Make sure that the removed content is consistent with Wikipedia's standards before restoring it or treating its removal as vandalism.
Theedit history of an article can be checked for recent suspicious edits. Article size, as given in bytes, usually increases slightly with time, so a sudden large decrease may indicate asection blanking. Similarly, if an article's size change is inappropriately large for the stated edit summary (e.g. "Fixing typo" while removing 100 bytes), the page may have been vandalized.
Even in Rome itself, the City of the Popes, the vandalism of the ignorant wrought dreadful havoc.
Rev.James MacCaffrey,History of the Catholic Church From the Renaissance to theFrench Revolution
In all the three methods above, examples of suspicious edits are those performed by IP addresses,red linked, or obviously improvised usernames. A good way to start is to click on every edit in watchlists, histories etc. with the least suspicion of being vandalism. Increased experience will probably give a sense of which edit descriptions are worth to check further and which may likely be ignored. Some descriptions like "Fixed typo" may be vandalism as that is one of the default edit summaries. IP editors should not be approached with the assumption that they are vandals. Although many vandals do vandalize without registering an account, there are many IP editors who aregreat contributors to Wikipedia. Always read the actual changes made and judge on that, rather than who made the changes or what was entered in theedit summary.
Viewing theabuse log or this version[1] if the regular abuse log is cluttered by spambots.
Watching for editstagged by the abuse filter. However, many tagged edits are legitimate, so they should not be blindly reverted. That is, do not revert without at least reading the edit.
Plausible, subtle changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism. Changing numbers, sometimes by 1, is a common stealth tactic.
Upon discovering vandalism,revert such edits, using the undo function or ananti-vandalism tool. Once the vandalism is undone,warn the vandalizing editor. Notifyadministrators at thevandalism noticeboard of editors who continue to vandalize after multiple warnings, and administrators should intervene to preserve content and prevent further disruption byblocking such editors. Users whosemain or sole purpose is clearly vandalism may be blocked indefinitely without warning.
If you see vandalism on a list of changes (such as yourwatchlist), then revert it immediately. You may use the "undo" button (and the automatic edit summary it generates), and mark the change as minor. It may be helpful to check thepage history to determine whether other recent edits by the same or other editors also represent vandalism. Repair all vandalism you can identify.
For a new article, if all versions of the article are pure vandalism, mark it forspeedy deletion by tagging it with{{Db-g3}}.
To make vandalism reverts easier you can ask for therollback feature to be enabled for your registered Wikipedia account. This feature is only for reverting vandalism and other obvious disruption, and lets you revert several recent edits with a single click. SeeWikipedia:Requests for permissions.
If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check theirother contributions. If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at theAdministrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard, though even in this case you may consider issuing awarning message first, unless there is an urgent need toblock the user. Otherwise, you can leave an appropriate warning on the user'stalk page. Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page, so they might appear only in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them also at the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Anadministrator will then decide whether to block the user.
For repeated vandalism by anIP user it is helpful to trace the IP address (e.g.http://whois.domaintools.com/) and add{{whois|Name of owner}} to the user talk page of the address. If it appears to be ashared IP address, add{{SharedIP|Name of owner}} or{{Shared IP edu|Name of owner}}. TheOrgName on the IP trace result should be used as theName of owner parameter in the above three templates.
Undetected vandalism
Sometimes vandalism takes place on top of older, undetected vandalism. With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred. This can make it harder to detect and delete the vandalism, which is now hidden among other edits. Sometimesbots try to fix collateral damage and accidentally make things worse. Check thepage history to make sure you'rereverting to a "clean" version of the page. Alternatively, if you can't tell where the best place is, take your best guess and leave a note on the article'stalk page so that someone more familiar with the page can address the issue—or you can manually remove the vandalism without reverting it.
For relatively inexperienced Wikipedians, use these simple steps to quickly respond to what you consider vandalism. This is essentially an abridged version of the above page.
Assess whether the edit was made ingood or bad faith. If in good faith, it isnot vandalism as such, so question the accuracy of information on the talk page or add aninline cleanup tag, such as a "{{dubious}}" tag, to the disputed edit. If it is in bad faith, then itis vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it.
Revert the vandalism by viewing the page's history and selecting the most recent version of the page prior to the vandalism. Use an edit summary such as 'rv/v' or 'reverted vandalism' and click on 'Publish changes'.
Warn the vandal. Access the vandal's talk page and warn them. A simple note explaining the problem with their editing is sufficient. If desired, aseries of warning templates exist to simplify the process of warning users, butthese templates are not required. These templates include
Level one: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} This is a gentle caution regarding unconstructive edits; it encourages new editors to use a sandbox for test edits. This is the mildest warning.
Level two: {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} This warning is also fairly mild, though it explicitly uses the word 'vandalism' and links to this Wikipedia policy. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block, however it uses the wording "loss of editing privileges" rather than "block".
Level three: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} This warning is sterner. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block while actually using the word "block".
Level four: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} This is the sharpest vandalism warning template, and indicates that any further disruptive editing may lead to a block without warning.
Level four-im: {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} This warning template should be used only in the worst conditions of vandalism. It indicates that this is the only warning the target will receive, and that further disruptive edits will result in a block without warning.
Watch for future vandalism from the vandal by checking the user's contributions. If bad faith edits continue, revert them and warn them again, letting the users know that they can be blocked. Note that it isnot necessary to use all four warning templates in succession, nor is it necessary to incrementally step through warnings.
Report vandals that continue their behavior after being warned toWikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. While not strictly required, administrators there are most likely to respond rapidly to requests which include at least two warnings, culminating in the level-four "last chance" template.
Template and CSS vandalism
If no vandalizing edits appear in the page's edit history, or the vandalism obscures the page tabs so you can't easily access the history or edit the page, it is probablytemplate orCascading Style Sheets vandalism. These are often not difficult to fix, but can be confusing.
To access the page history or edit the page when the "View history" or "Edit" tabs are inaccessible, useWikipedia keyboard shortcuts. You can also access the history through avandalism patrolling tool if you're using one, or from yourwatchlist if you arewatching the page), or from youruser contributions if you have edited the page. Or, enter theURL manually into theaddress bar of your browser: it will take the formhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_article?action=edit orhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_article?action=history.
If vandalizing edits do not appear in the page history, the vandalism is likely in atranscluded template instead of the page itself. To find the template page, edit the article (usingWikipedia keyboard shortcuts if necessary); toward the bottom of the edit page is a list of all templates transcluded into the page. Look for vandalism in the transcluded templates notprotected. Alternatively, look for{{Template name}} or{{Template name|parameter...}} in the text, approximately where the vandalism appears, then go to the page Template:Template name and revert any vandalism. When you return to the original page, the vandalism should be gone, though you may need topurge the page.
Image vandalism
Images are occasionally used for vandalism, such as by placing shock or explicit images where they should not be. When an image has been created exclusively for vandalism, it can be requested for speedy deletion: under criterionG3 if hosted on Wikipedia or asvandalism if hosted onCommons (a file repository forWikimedia Foundation projects). When an image is used for vandalism due to its explicit nature but has legitimate encyclopedic uses (Wikipediais not censored) or is hosted on Commons and has legitimate uses on other projects, it can be requested for being added to thebad image list, which precludes its addition on any page except those specified.
Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to anyedits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they arenot vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of makingpersonal attacks.
The purpose of warning a user who has vandalized is to inform the user that the user's conduct is abusive and prohibited, and seek the user's compliance. Not all that appears to be vandalism is in bad faith, and a warning can politely advise and correct users unaware of the nature of their actions. A warning may even dissuade a user acting in bad faith from continuing, particularly as the warnings escalate and the user is informed of the consequences of continuing.
Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention. Because of this, users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism.
How to warn vandalizing users
A list of user warning templates, with descriptions and instructions for their use, is atWikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. In addition to a series of user warning templates for vandalism, there are series for specific types of vandalism. Use the most specific user warning template for the conduct. The existence of these templates is intended as a convenience, andtheir use is not required. A specifically tailored note, written personally and directly addressing the problematic behavior is equally as acceptable as a form of warning, and in many cases, will often result in better engagement with the user in question.
Assume good faith (such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines) unless it is clear that the user is deliberately harming Wikipedia from the outset, for instance in cases of abusive, vulgar, or juvenile vandalism.
If you do choose to use warning templates, please choose templates that are appropriate to the type and level of problem in question. If edits are questionable, but not clearly vandalism, consider using lower-level templates (level 1 or 2) and wait for a few further contributions to see if the other editor responds or changes their behavior. If the behavior continues, or if it is clear the edits are in bad faith from the outset, the use of a higher-level template (level 3 or 4) may be appropriate. If, after receiving multiple warnings, the behavior persists past the point where good faith can be extended, or it becomes clear that the user hashad the opportunity to notice they have been warned, and theystill persist with the problematic behavior, consider reporting them tothe Vandalism noticeboard.
Administrator response to vandalism
Response from administrators at the vandalism noticeboard varies depending on the type of vandalism and the specifics of the report. Keep in mind:
Admins are unlikely to block a user who has not been warned at all, or who has been warned, but has stopped editing since being warned. It must be clear that the user has been told to stop vandalizing, and still persists despite such warnings, except for egregious cases.
Reports of vandalism from registered accounts are handled differently than that from IP users, and reports from newly registered accounts are handled differently from accounts of experienced Wikipedia users.
IP addresses may or may not be kept by the same person for long periods of time; a dynamic address which appears to have stopped vandalizing will probably not be blocked, while one thatis actively vandalizing will likely receive a short (1–2 day) block. If there is evidence that an IP address is being used by the same person over a long period of time to repeatedly vandalize Wikipedia, or if it is clear the IP address is being used by multiple people to vandalize Wikipedia (such as a school-based IP, which can sometimes attract lots of juvenile vandalism over long periods of time from many different people) then an administrator may block the IP for a longer time period (several months to a year). IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely.
Brand-new accounts who repeatedly vandalize despite multiple warnings are usually blocked indefinitely, especially when there is no history of quality editing on the account.
Reports which involve experienced Wikipedia users rarely result in blocks for vandalism, as these reports are usually mislabeling other problematic behavior (such as misrepresenting sources, or removing text, or edit warring) as vandalism. The vandalism noticeboard is not designed to litigate disputes or to investigate complex behavior problems. Instead, other noticeboards such asthe edit warring noticeboard orthe incidents noticeboard are more appropriate to deal with those issues.
Check back in to the vandalism noticeboard to see how your report has been dealt with. If an administrator declines to block someone you report, they will always leave a note explaining why they did not respond as you requested. Often, this does not mean the person you reported is behaving properly, or should not be dealt with, but merely that themechanisms of the vandalism noticeboard are not well suited for handling many types of reports. Consider taking the issue up at a more appropriate noticeboard, which has been tailored to the specific type of problem you are seeing. Other times, a report is declined for being stale (blocks to abandoned accounts, or to IP addresses which have been dormant for some time are rarely done), or to the admin being unable to easily identify the edits as vandalism.
If the vandalism in question is "subtle vandalism", is being committed by a person who wasblocked under a prior account or IP address, or requires in-depth and direct knowledge of a prior problem, consider taking the report tothe incidents noticeboard instead. There are hundreds of Wikipedia administrators, and many of them are unfamiliar with the intricacies of past cases. Unless it is the sort of vandalism that needs no explanation at all, it should be taken elsewhere and notWP:AIV.
Reminding responding users to correctly warn
Because warnings for vandalism are generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention, it is important that users responding to vandalism warn vandalizing users. To inform responding users of this responsibility, use the user warning template{{uw-warn}}.
Likewise, incorrect use of user warning templates, even if well-intended, should be identified to the mistaken user. The{{uw-tempabuse}} series of user warning templates may be used, but a detailed talk page message is better.
If an address is not in one registry, it will probably be in another.
Identifying associated IP addresses
If you're trying to determine whether aset of IP addresses involved in vandalism is related, a command-line WHOIS query will generally list this information, or can be shown using theRouteviewsDNSname server asn.routeviews.org reverseIP look-up to find theCIDR andASN for a set of IP addresses. This can be done usingIP lookup tools.
AWHOIS query will typically return NetRange, CIDR, NetName, NetHandle, and OriginAS, all of which identify specific network spaces. Data and labeling vary considerably by WHOIS registrar.
The Routeviews data is far more uniformly structured and returns ASN and CIDR as a reverse-lookup TXT query result. It is more useful and faster than WHOIS when checking multiple IP addresses and can be scripted or automated.
CIDR identifies a set of related addresses ("network space") and ASN identifies anAutonomous System—that is, a single administrative entity with control over multiple (and often very many) addresses. Some (though not all) abuse from multiple sources does come from such unified spaces—possibly corresponding to a set of hosts within a single facility.
Abuse originating in a short period of time from different IP addresses within the same CIDR or ASN may indicate a dedicated non-distributed attack, as opposed to adistributed denial of service attack.
Proxies, VPNs and Tor exit nodes
It's possible that a user's source location is being masked by routing traffic through aProxy server,VPN or theTor network. Such addresses typically serve many, not just one, person, and though they can be valid present challenges when used for abuse.
A proxy VPN is not necessarily detectable, but commercial services may be indicated by the hostname when resolving an IP address.
Users of the Tor anonymity network will show the IP address of a Tor "exit node". Lists of known Tor exit nodes are available from the Tor Project'sTor Bulk Exit List exporting tool.
