Vandalism reports

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Vandalism reports
Shortcut:
VR
Before reporting, please take note of the following premises:
Most Wikimedia wikis are able to deal with vandalism on their own. This page is intended only for certain reports
Reporting requirements
  • The username(s) or IP address(es) of the offenders.
  • A description of their vandalism (spamming, adding junk, removing legitimate text, etc), preferably with diffs to examples.
  • The Wikimedia wikis affected.
  • Suggestions for monitoring strategies, blocks etc.

When reporting please use informative headings like:

=== username(s), IP address ===
*{{luxotool|IP address}} <!-- for IP addresses -->
*{{sultool|Username}} <!-- for usernames -->
Description, evidence, diffs, etc. --~~~~
Note on spam
  • If the spamming is cross-wiki, malware sites, repeated or severe, please report it to the spam blacklist.
Related pages
Notice
If the username is clearly offensive, libellous or contains private information do NOT post it here. Email the private OTRS queue for stewards: stewards-at-wikimedia.org - Thank you.
Archives & subpages 
Vandalism reports Vandalism reports/Archive 1 Vandalism reports/Archive 2
Vandalism reports/Archive 3 Vandalism reports/Archive 4 Vandalism reports/Archive 5
Vandalism reports/BogaertB Vandalism reports/Unknown
Crosswiki requests
MetaWiki requests

Contents

[edit] Current cross-wiki vandalism

Please place new reports at the top of this section. Thank you.

[edit] User:87.220.243.174 and User:87.222.1.186

Reincarnations of Al12179 below; both keep spamming the same images cross-wiki. global edits 1, global edits 2. --Cú Faoil 08:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term, recurrent vandalism

See the archives

[edit] OlympicFan

OlympicFan creates sockpuppets to spam user pages in different wikis about a sports-related forum. Please report accounts below, and move them to the collapsed box once they have been globally locked. Jafeluv 23:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

    • 2.156.178.11 - currently blocked 2 weeks on en.wiki - The Bushranger 02:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • sl:User:RoadToLondon012 - currently active on sl.wiki and a couple of others, not (yet) blocked. — Yerpo Eh? 15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Done Done, globally locked. Trijnstel 15:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] IRadysyuk (Spammer)

Crosswiki spammer for the commercial website comuty.com. The user page in de:WP has been deleted and the user was blocked indefinite. Global contributions [1] --Gleiberg 09:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term cross wiki vandalism against Portuguese history

I - Since January 2007 we have a Wikipedia's user theory being spread im many Wikis: there was a reign of Queen Beatrice of Portugal from 22 Octobre 1383 to April (after, August) 1385. The user was, in 2007, called Andreas Herzog [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] [2] and we can read his theory here.

His theory in 2007: «Se as Cortes de Coimbra não lhe reconheceram a legitimidade, não podiam certamente apagar os factos históricos que estavam para trás - e um facto indesmentível é que D. Beatriz tomou atitudes próprias de um rei de Portugal. Por muito que Fernão Lopes - a nossa principal memória para este conturbado período histórico - nos queira fazer pensar o contrário, quando lemos as páginas da Primeira Parte da Crónica d'el-Rei D. João I da Boa Memória, 1.ª parte essa que foca o chamado período do «Interregno», do Mestre de Avis como Regedor e Defensor do Reino (e então, pergunto-lhe, onde está a verdade? Porquê chamar crónica do Rei D. João I se os factos que descreve se referem a um período em que ele era apenas Mestre de Avis, e somente o último capítulo diz respeito à sua aclamção como rei em Coimbra? Não seria mais verdadeiro chamar-lhe antes Crónica da Regência do Mestre de Avis ou ainda, mais exactamente, Crónica do [desafortunado] Reinado de D. Beatriz ou coisa que o valha? Porquê, até, a designação que usamos, entre nós, historiadores, de interregno, período entre reinados, se afinal havia uma rainha? Parece que afinal a história deste período é tudo menos descomprometida... Usamos o artifício do interregno para dizer que ninguém governa de jure... Como vê, a História é tudo menos uma ciência pacífica, exacta e objectiva - e quando uma crónica é espelho de uma encomenda do poder político que governa a Nação, então temos todos os motivos e mais alguns para desconfiar da sua inteira verdade...). Pernicioso é, se ao Estado couber a escrita da História... E o tempo da história "oficial", espero que já lá vá, pelo menos, há trinta e três anos...»

This user isn't a common Wikipedia author, because he was a sysop of Wikipedia po in 2006. I intervened, since 2010, and this was corrected, at least, in Portuguese, Spanish, French and English Wikipedias, but in many others this theory remained. It as no historiographical foundation, except a hoax from the time of King Miguel I in Portugal. As they needed, in that time, a precedent to dethrone Queen Mary II, they invented that the portuguese Cortes of Coimbra, on April 1385, have dethroned "Queen" Beatrice. It's known that this Cortes declared the Portuguese Throne empty since the dead of her father, King Ferdinand I, and the user Andreas Herzog, if he is, as I think, also the user Trasamundo [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] [3] (because both defend the same very special theory and user Trasamundo reveals a great knowledge of Wikipedia), know all this because it was writen by me, on a discussion with Trasamundo, here

I wrote, then (current rectification on italic): «The contemporary little number of authors defending Beatriz or Juan I were kings, or those that defended this in the past, don't give dates of their "reign" because they consider the two (or one or another) were allways the real kings (of a nominal point of view). The only guys "dating" the reign of Beatriz (but calling Juan I an usurper) were the impostors, in the time of King Miguel I, that invented the "destitution" of Beatriz by the Cortes in 1385 to justify, with a forged "precedent", the drowing of queen Maria II, this one a true destitution. So, regarding 1383-1385, this is not history, it's a joke.»

By hasard, I didn't know, at the time, that there is a historiographical current of spanish and portuguese authors considering Beatrice titular Queen of Portugal between 22 Octobre and the middle of December 1383, but, till today, this theory remains minoritary among the portuguese professors of History. But one thing is, even on this theory, a nominal reign between 22 Octobre - middle December 1383, and of this theory we can inform our readers, and another thing, that is junk, is Trasamundo's criation of an Beatrice and Juan I of Castile reign from 22 Octobre 1383 to August 1385.

Well, as I arrived, in 2011, to a minimum consensum with Trasamundo on the texts of Wikipedia es, I didn't bother any more with this question. But now Trasamundo is returning to charge, recuperating is junk theory with no historiographical support: the reign of Beatrice from 1383 to 1385, and eliminating all opposed information. As he also don't like King Juan I of Castile's testament, he not only eliminates any reference to the fact that, on this testament, the owning of the Kingdom of Portugal is declared on doubt between Beatrice and the futur King Henry III of Castile, as he invents an interpretation: «la mención al papel arbitral del Papa es para ratificar que efectivamente los derechos de sucesión de Portugal pertenecerían a Enrique III tras fallecer Beatriz.» The massacre of the ancient text and the new text with this junk theory and the falsification of the sense of Juan I de Castile's testament was in this date. The most part of the new text is good, and some parts are even very good, but this is furtive vandalism, to bring junk and eliminate previous legitimate material on an article. I suspect that, if we don't do nothing, very soon we will have more spreading of "Beatrice and Juan I of Castile reign between the years of 1383 and 1385".

What we need to do, about this particular question:

I) Clean up all the pages about the Portuguese Kings, and about Beatrice and Juan I of Castile, on many Wikis, of this junk theory of the "reign of both between 1383-1385".

II) And, as there is a historiographical dispute even about a reign from 22 Octobre to middle December 1383, and this is a minoritary current, to impeach any changes on those articles declaring that they were kings of Portugal for 60 days. The question of Juan I of Castile's testament is only, for the moment, on Wikipedia es, and I don't need Metawiki intervention (I will resolve it).

As I have yet many thing to say and two more (or three) cases to expose, in the end of all, I will refer what I think we must do with user Trasamundo or with user Trasamundo/Herzog. For now, I only ask to be confirm if they are the same person. Jorge alo 09:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

II - The case of Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal. It was a hoax, but with tertiary and even secondary sources. So, it was a good hoax, and we profit it, on Portuguese and English Wikipedias, to make articles about this hoax or repeated equivocation (the english article isn't yet finished). Meanwhile, Peadar [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] [4], creator of the article on Wikipedia po, was blocked two times. On Wikipedia en, on a conversation with me [5], Borgatya [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] [6] assumed a relationship with user Peadar:

«Please accept the existence of this article which does not hurt your personality and for you is also better to agree instead of querrel here and in portugese wiki.21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Borgatya (talk)»

Possibly, they are two sock-puppets of someone else (and I would like to know who), that began to spread the hoax by wiki-scam. Well, could be a equivocation in good faith of some author of Wikipedia, but there's a clear note of vandalism that remained: after the issue has been clarified, Peadar/Borgatya or Peadar and Borgatya left the hungarian article, with all it's false content, as it was, til this moment (11h 22m, 09/01/2012, on my portuguese clock). This is not a good faith behavior and he (or they) vandalized hungarian Wikipedia.

In this case,I ask:

I) To notify hungarian wikipedia (I don't no hungarian) that they have this false article. II) The two sock-puppets don't need to be blocked because they are inactive, but it's necessary to see from who they are sock-puppets, begining for Herzog/Trasamundo (or both, if they aren't the same). And also to see if these sock puppets return to service. Jorge alo 11:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

III - The case of the Royal coat of arms of the portuguese kingdom. This isn't the complete coat of the last Bragança's Kings. There are some elements and others are missing. As you can see by the conversation between me and Cristiano Tomás/Lumastan, he is accepting the criticism, but, in the end, he says he will not correct the coat of arms (he says with me, but I never said to him that I wanted that both we corrected it; my intervention was to the coat of arms shall be corrected, and by him).

I think this is also a case of furtive vandalism. The user know that the coat isn't complete and, so, isn't the description, made by Anselmo Braancamp Freire and other authors, of the coat of arms of the last Bragança's Kings, but don't give a damn about. As it was made by him, is very well as it is. I suspect Lumastan [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] is user Trasamundo, not only because of this idea that he knows all and all that he do is well done, but also because user Trasamundo is, since six days (from 3 to 9 January), inactiv on Wikipedia es.

In this case there was a development, the user Cristiano Tomás/Lumastan asked pardon and said he will correct the coat of arms [7], but I keep the request I-, to confirm if user Lumastan is user Trasamundo, because not only of this incident but also because of point IV of this report.

Second development, user Cristiano Tomás say he is not Trasamundo nor Andreas Herzog [8], but I continue with my request I of this point III.

I ask, in this case:

I- To confirm if user Lumastan is user Trasamundo. II- To eliminate his coats of arms, on Commons, for the last Bragança's Kings of Portugal, this one, because the tittle is wrong, and this one. The first, on the french text, it's a proof that he knows very well what the arms reel were, because they miss only a little dragon with wings and a helmet under the crown to be complete. And, by my conversation with him, we see that he was trying to fool me about the helmet (open and not closed) and about the dispositon of the ermine (not to above, but as it is on the image of the french text).

IV - Well, where can be now user Herzog/Trasamundo (or both) in this moment? As we saw for his contributions on Wikipedia es, he was working on the Portuguese Kings, and if I'm right, and he is user Lumastan, he is "working" on the same matter and taking the time and the patient of a lot of people, as usual, but now on Wikipedia en. You can see his good work here.

As people on this discussion is complaining of distorsion of numbers, false arguments, and, as I think it's usual on him, of the use of sock-puppets,

I ask, in this case:

I- To put a filter against sock-puppets on this [9] discussion page, and since the beginning of the discussion, to see if the sock puppets were there, particularly on the discussion of the move.

II- to investigate, on all the Wikimedia network, the relationship between this seven: Andreas Herzog [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs], Trasamundo [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs],Lumastan [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs], Lecen [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] [10], Alarbus [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] [11], Peadar [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] and Borgatya [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs].

V - Already out of the issue of the Portuguese History, I have also to say that this guy and some others are promoting, since long time ago, all the pretenders that they can find to Kings, and everywhere. They are Kings creators! This is particularly harmful to Wikipedia because, with false Kings on our lists, we are, at least, subject of criticism of the respectivs school communities.

In this case I ask:

I- To notify all Wikipedias that they possibly have cases of false Kings on their lists.

Ii- To investigate and list all the Wikipedians envolved on the fabrication of Kings, also the relationship between them and the possible relationship of this guys with any vulgar genealogy Internet sites.

VI - Finally, I think this guy needs a exemplar punition. His behavior is of someone wich is mad, thinking that is the best, a kind of little God in the earth. It's true that he is very clever, but, unfortunately, he is "from the dark side of the force".

In this case, I ask:

I- As this guy is not a common guy, and is an ancient sysop, to be guarded by a Steward. And, as user Cristiano Tomás say he is not user Trasamundo neither user Andreas Herzog, that he also be guarded by a Steward till we are sure that what he says is true. And about user Trasamundo, if he also says he isn't user Andreas Herzog, I ask the same thing.

II - I guard my proposition of punition, about the principal suspect, till the end of this matter. To all the others envolved on the fabrication of kings and reigns, orders of succession, etc, on any Wikipedia, I asked they will be warned to not repeat this behavior, and, if they persist, I don't ask they will be banned, but I ask an hard and exemplar punition, at least, a block till they will demand excuses to the community.

Final note: As this is a complex case about, I think, an ancient sysop, I thought the better was to put it here, on this Meta page. If I'm wrong, please tell me where I must present this report. My best salutations, Jorge alo 13:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jorge. You are looking for an experienced sysop. I am not sure if I meet with criteria, but you are free to ask a second opinion. Mentioned accounts focus their edits on large projects. I believe you should ask for help on each large project; nothing about large projects can be decided here. If we are dealing with long-term vandalism, the accounts should be blocked, but none of them are and they won't be blocked on these projects by anyone except local sysops. This page might be used to report vandalism on large projects but only blatant ones.
The most part of what you are asking have to be done by local sysop (i.e. put filter, block users, clean up pages). You asked some other actions that, in my opinion, needs better explanation, like clarify the abuse made by some accounts (it is not disallowed to have multiple accounts unless they were used to do any harm and, if they did it, you need to ask a local checkuser to perform the check) and clarify why they should "be guarded" (I suppose you are requesting them to be locked). If possible, please try to write a simple text; easy to be understood by those that are not following this problem.” Teles (T @ L C S) 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I want a second, and even, if possible, a third opinion. And more, to me, is strange your answer to my report, and also your behavior here, on Wikipedia po. I do not trust you. Salutations, Jorge alo 21:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. You are free to tell me what is strange on my talk page and I can explain or review my behavior. Regards.” Teles (T @ L C S) 00:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I am a someone that loves History, not a computer expert, and I have already spent more then 6 hours writing this warning to you, Stewards of Meta. What I'm telling you is that these guys are a organized group and have a great knowledge of how Wikipedia works. It's possible that they have inflitrations not only on local administrations but also on Meta administration. Study, please, what happened here and its developments. What I ask is that this matter will be followed by one or more Stewards of all trust, and I even ask that myself will be watched, because, on the next two or three months, I'm going to try to correct some of the mess they have criated. I don't demand they should be locked for the moment, what I demand is that all this matter, and people involved, will be followed and watched by Stewards of full confidence. And I also demand that a general warning should be sent to all Wikipedias alerting to the possibility of some of their lists of Kings have been vandalized, as, in many cases, the portuguese lists of kings are. If Meta, in such a case, can't do nothing, very well, this kind of organized gangs will have a easy life on keeping vandalazing. To a organized attack we only can respond with organized action, and, as Teles certainly is not a fool, for me, is strange that he can't see that. Ask me to do the job, local by local Wikipedia, facing a organized group? This is a wonderful form of evade the problem. So, I also ask Teles will be put out of this matter. Salutations. Jorge alo 14:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Development: On Wikipedia spanish I am blocqued for 30 days and strange things, that I have stated before, since 2010, on Wikipedia portuguese, now are happening there. This discussion page was altered yesterday or today, but now as the date of 31.dec.2011 as the last modification:
Discusión:Beatriz de Portugal (reina)
   «Pocos meses después murió su padre y fue proclamada reina de Portugal bajo la regencia de su madre»...(discusión) 17:52 20 ene 2010 (UTC)

   Iniciar sesión / crear cuenta

   Artículo
   Discusión

   Leer
   Editar
   Sección nueva
   Ver historial

   Portada
   Portal de la comunidad
   Actualidad
   Cambios recientes
   Páginas nuevas
   Página aleatoria
   Ayuda
   Donaciones
   Notificar un error

Imprimir/exportar

   Crear un libro
   Descargar como PDF
   Versión para imprimir

Herramientas

   Esta página fue modificada por última vez el 31 dic 2011, a las 17:28.
   El texto está disponible bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución Compartir Igual 3.0...
   Contacto
As can be confirmed on the page's historial:

Icon tools.svg Herramientas: Detalles de contribuciones • Búsqueda en el historial Estadísticas: Estadísticas • Número de visitas • Número de personas que vigilan esta página Leyenda: (act) = diferencia con la versión actual, (ant) = diferencia con la versión anterior, m = edición menor

   (act | ant) 17:28 31 dic 2011‎ Trasamundo (discusión | contribuciones)‎ m (561 bytes) (Discusión:Beatriz de Portugal (1372-1410)...
   (act | ant) 17:54 20 ene 2010‎ 88.157.243.179 (discusión)‎ (561 bytes) (deshacer)
   (act | ant) 17:52 20 ene 2010‎ 88.157.243.179 (discusión)‎ (558 bytes) (Página creada con « :«Pocos meses después murió su padre y fue...
This page contained my warning to the spanish sysops and editors of the article that I was going to do this report, and now that warning as disappeared. It contained also some critics to the article that taked the editor to make some modifications. Jorge alo 07:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Cold Ice Creams

There seems to be an ongoing vandalism concerning the topic "Blue Cold Ice Creams", which includes the following edits:

-- 85.181.2.119 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism_reports&oldid=3422926"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Beyond the Web
Print/export
Toolbox