Vandalism reports

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Vandalism reports
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
If the username is clearly offensive, libellous or contains private information do NOT post it here. Email the private OTRS queue for stewards: - 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/Archive 6 Vandalism reports/Archive 7 Vandalism reports/BogaertB
Vandalism reports/Unknown
Crosswiki requests
MetaWiki requests

Current cross-wiki vandalism[edit]

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

Cross-wiki vandalism. Copied from my user talk at la:Disputatio Usoris:UV#Can you help?:

An anonymous IP has been slowly doing some cross-wiki vandalism: an illustration of an organ (I mean, a musical organ!) has been inserted on lots of pages, across many wikipedias, where it didn't belong, especially pages about guitarists and about manga. It's surprising that they haven't been noticed: some of the pages have been like that for months and have been edited meanwhile. Just shows how easy it is. It happened here today at la:Gary Moore, that's why I noticed. ... the address should be blocked, I think. ... Andrew Dalby 13:24, 8 Martii 2014 (UTC)

--UV (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


Cross-wiki spam in different wikis. — ♫♫ Leitoxx ♆  Talk ♪♪ — 22:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As someone with access to deleted material on eswiki, I can confirm that this user's edits there are not spam. LlamaAl (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done Per LlamaAl, this user's edits are not blatant vandalism, so there is no action to be taken. If you still believe that this user's edits have been unconstructive, please consult each local wiki for their actions. Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


On meta, this account keep on giving wrong translations, sign on non-talk page. Leave meaningless characters. Doing vandalism actions on ZH wikipedia, wikimedia commons,, Xcq5678 has been blocked for unlimited duration for the reason vandalism only on the three wiki projects mentioned at the sentences above.--Pumpkin (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


For the past few years a user has been using multiple accounts to add promotional language and copyright-violating images to Wikipedia articles on Romanian celebrities. He is active on a large number of Wikimedia projects: most prominently on English Wikipedia, Romanian Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons, but also on several other Wikipedias (German, French, Spanish, etc.). He has become particularly persistent over the past six months. Cross-wiki coordination of efforts to curb the disturbance would be useful.

The oldest account we're aware of is en:User:Beleiutz. On the English and Romanian Wikipedias he has repeatedly stated that his name is Vlad Mateescu [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and that he represents the Walt Disney company, Pinewood Shepperton, and other media companies. Despite this he has refused to provide any evidence that he holds the copyright to the images he uploads (many of which appear to be found on the web or are television stills, which Disney or Pinewood Shepperton wouldn't own the rights to anyway). Web searches for this name turn up profiles, interviews, and blog posts where he claims to be a company director, supervisor, or other official representative of many other organizations, including Warner Bros., Pixar, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios, and even the Wikimedia Foundation! The attempts to impersonate WMF officials offsite were reported to the WMF, and it looks like the sites have now been taken down, though I wouldn't be surprised if they reappear in the future.

Here's a listing of the known accounts:

He also edits from a wide range of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, though lately it's always been IPv6.

A possibly incomplete list of past noticeboard reports and administrators'/bureaucrats' discussions:

The following characteristics can be used to spot the sockpuppets:

  • They are concerned exclusively with articles on Romanian celebrities and the films and TV shows the appear in.
  • New articles, and textual additions to existing articles, tend to be strongly promotional in tone.
  • They make repeated attempts to upload and link copyright-infringing images, often giving falsified source and licensing information. Sometimes they create Flickr-washing accounts to evade detection of the copyright infrinement.
  • Their edit summaries are usually strings of nonsense characters, or (if in English) brief, vague, and grammatically incorrect (e.g., "improve Delia article").
  • They make extensive use of RefLinks, particularly with the IPv6 accounts.
  • They have the annoying habit of wikilinking common words which shouldn't be wikilinked.
  • Lately the accounts do not communicate. As soon as one sock is discovered, it is abandoned and a new one is created.

A few months ago the possibility of an IPv6 rangeblock was discussed but was found not to be feasible. In light of the scale of the disruption, perhaps this matter could be revisited here. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Cross-wiki vandalism: bogus article creation to make wikis pass milestones reported at Wikimedia News. - dcljr (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Edits at 2 wikis have already been deleted. - dcljr (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I could delete the pages on the other wiki if you want, but I think I'll leave them as you notified a local admin. Want me to block too? I think you should warn them on all wikis they are active (including here). PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
See Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Cross-wiki bogus article creation. No warning necessary, IMO. I guess in the future, I'll just report over there (Steward requests) and let them block if they want. - dcljr (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Global linkspamming; non-malware, just advertising. |FDMS (WP: en, de) 23:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Mainly advertising/spamming only account, will continue to monitor. Warnings on enwiki, latest incidents. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


This user make cross-wiki vandalism (repetitive destructive changes in articles about en:Shagrath‎). He was warned to stop this, but he ignore warnings.

Please block User:Batmansexy for 2 months (at least) at editing wikimedia projects. Also check his IP address, and block this IP for 1 week (to prevent anonymous vandalism or creating of new accounts). This Ip may be the same with user -
NB: User was already blocked on rowiki for 24h. ro:User talk:Batmansexy#Blocat, but he started again vandalism.
Thanks. --XXN (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop him. He just vandalized againg on multiple wikipedias.
Just look: Contributions on ENwiki
Contributions on ROwiki
No other contributions to other articles, only to Shagrath.
I think, he is fool. (no offence, just diagnosis - Idée fixe) --XXN (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

At rowiki was blocked again for 1 week.
Is anybody here active? --XXN (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@XXN:, yes, people here are active. But you'd have better luck on SRG on in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Chilean vandal[edit]

Please see the "Chilean vandal" section of en:WP:ANI. A rangeblock is appropriate if it's (1) technically possible and (2) unlikely to have substantial collateral damage. I don't know much about rangeblocks, so I don't know if it's reasonably possible or unlikely to cause substantial collateral damage. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Global blocks on ranges are possible but I don't agree with a global block in this case. I have looked into the global contribs of some IPs and from what I can see it is mostly enwp and eswp that is being vandalized by this guy. Applying a global block (which affects ~800 wikis) on a /18 range (FWIS, it is an /18, meaning 16,384 IPs) is not appropriate while two wikis are being vandalized. BTW, should this be reverted? --Glaisher [talk] 06:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I reverted it considering that [6] and [7] were previous vandal edits from that user. Is it possible to just block the range just in en and es wiki for a few days, and possibly months? I generally agree with the temporary blocks, but this person has been warned and blocked individually many times in both projects and s/he has no intentions to stop. Tbhotch (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The user has returned with multiple edits these days: (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs). Is there any chance to rangeblock the IPs? Tbhotch (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Massive addition of pages[edit]

During the last 2,5 years five accounts (single-purpose accounts) have:

  • uploaded lots of photos from Flickr to Commons from an Italian photographer;
  • before that those photos have been added to many wikipages (many depict with clearly-notable people), any related thumb included a redlink to [[Augusto De Luca]];
  • then hundreds of pages have been massively created on hundreds of wikis, most of by automatic translators;
  • those creations had also involved wikiquote;
  • some days ago an account "Augusto De Luca" has been created;
  • within two days (at a very high rate then) an overall of 557 userpages has been created for that user
  • similar attempts had been done on other non-WMF wikis which are not used as references on WMF wikis (please check your wikis because those are user-generated contents)
That's the hughest case of SEO-like onwiki promotion I've ever seen.
Please keep in mind SEOers tend to emphasize the importance of their customers, your evaluation of contents should then be quite stricter.
--Vituzzu (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments Talk:Vandalism reports#Massive addition_of pages

Long-term, recurrent vandalism[edit]

See the archives


Alvarosevilladesign [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs]

I have originally started an inquiry at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Widespread spamming by a photographer, but it seems that this place suits better. Please look there to find a longer version, links and evidence.

Short version: Commons user Alvarosevilladesign (the creation of his own personal en.wp article David Adam Kess has been rejected) is a sock puppet of Ilovetosurfthewaves [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs], Daytonarolexboston [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs] and Bonsairolex [SULinfo] – [cross-wiki-contribs], all of them blocked in en.wp. Further sock puppets have been confirmed in 2011, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonsairolex/Archive. He's a photographer who has uploaded hundreds of photographs to commons (that's fine), and he's also a SEO. This version of his commons user page includes a link to his SEO site. There you'll find a testimonial page (http... - I saved it to my computer, in case he deletes it) from which you can gather that he created, with his older accounts now blocked, articles like en:Surfing in Ecuador, en:Waltham Model 1857, and others in an SEO context. I came across his activities when I noticed lots of his photographs in top categories of Commons rather than in the most appropriate cats further down the tree. Then I noticed that a number of his pictures are also placed in many (30, 50 or more) local wikipedias, although there are better, higher resolution images available or his images were inappropriate or redundant. (Examples: global use of [8], [9], [10]) My conviction is that he spams his pictures in order to increase their search engine rankings. He has shown the same behaviour with his account Daytonarolexboston, see e.g. this file. Blocking his account won't stop him from spamming his pictures all over local Wikipedias that have few editors to control him, since spamming is done by IPs from his host country Ecuador (example). Is there anything that can be done about this? How can we make sure that multiple local projects dont become a playground for SEOs? --Sitacuisses (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe SEO doesn't work at Wikipedia, due to nonfollow global tagging. So what is wrong, him putting his picture where there is no picture before this, as long as he did not replace a better picture with his? Yosri (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to spend more time with this matter to get an overview of his proceeding; he spends lots of time with this as well. A good method is to look at some of his pictures he added to many language versions and find out how many images had been already there, and how many more and what subjects he added. He doesn't just put pictures where there are none, he adds his pictures no matter how many images there already are of the same subject. In de.wp, this contradicts the guidelines (de:Wikipedia:Artikel illustrieren) as well as in en.wp (en:Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries). A random example: I removed three of his black and white photographs from the German El Escorial article. Actually, it were two images, one of which he added twice to the same page, although there was already a color photo of the same subject in place. His b&w image is still in use in more than 30 wikis, although there are better ones available.
He added extensive galleries of repetitive subjects in many languages. Here's some turtles in gl.wp [11], in eu.wp [12], in mi.wp [13], and so on. We're talking about hundreds of images in dozens of Wikipedias.
Concerning the nofollow tag, Google is more sophisticated than you seem to be aware of. Getting into Wikipedia is on the top list of SEOs. It's a fact that Wikipedia images and articles get top positions in Google, and it's another fact that Kess mentions his Wikipedia activities in an SEO context on his own website (see Search the web for "wikipedia and SEO", you'll find statements like "Wikipedia is a goldmine of traffic and SEO power just waiting to be taken advantage of". --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)