Vandalism reports

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Billinghurst (talk | contribs) at 13:18, 17 January 2012 (→‎User:67.174.105.51: done). It may differ significantly from the current version.
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@wikimedia.org - Thank you.

Archives & subpages
Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Current cross-wiki vandalism

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

User:67.174.105.51

repeated acts of vandalism on Richard Carl Fuisz, a living person bio

Done billinghurst sDrewth 13:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:46.255.83.10

46.255.83.10 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye Latest reincarnation of the Italian "municipalities merging" IP 2.224.12.20 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye, 94.88.178.219 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye and 195.62.170.97 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye. Some few contribs are okay, most of it is completely nonsense. NNW 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Vituzzu 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Al12179

Al12179 (talk · contribs) just got blocked on de.wikipedia for crosswiki image spamming. See his global contributions, which seem to affect a considerable number of projects. --Cú Faoil 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

201.24.42.5

Active cross-wiki spam. -- 84.73.76.136 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Güllenmätsch

Edgar again --Guandalug 13:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Mercy 13:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx. Annoying little *censored*.... --Guandalug 13:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muss man suchen! 2

Edgar von Webern (evw) --Inkowik (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done —DerHexer (Talk) 13:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euergneuruppiner

Please stop this user. --46.15.103.139 10:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, globally locked by Quentinv57, together with Eendrarlishällöä. Thanks for the report. Trijnstel 17:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aeuerhull

Again Edgar von Webern. --Inkowik (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jafeluv 17:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mwanzonhfbv

Again Edgar von Webern. --Inkowik (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Mentifisto 18:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tumstaff

Again Edgar von Webern. --Inkowik (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Mentifisto 18:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aserbeidschan

Crosswiki abuse of Edgar von Webern. --Inkowik (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done —DerHexer (Talk) 13:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stockprotzsau

Crosswiki abuse of Edgar von Webern. --Inkowik (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done globally locked by Matanya. Trijnstel 18:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki spammer: User:Janwalls

Please lock account and consider adding spamlinks to bl. thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Vituzzu 13:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me doing a list of the links to put in the blacklist? --Vituzzu 13:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added nine domains he was spamming, though there might be more I didn't catch... Courcelles 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've blacklisted three more domains. All are now on the list. Trijnstel 11:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86.145.231.48

86.145.231.48 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye vandalizes several pages on Meta --Iste (☎) 10:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Blocked for 6 hours by Quentinv57 on Meta. Trijnstel 10:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

188.55.90.229

188.55.90.229 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye "Man on a mission" who obviously wants to edit the article about Israel in all languange versions. --Iste (☎) 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam accounts on pih.wiki (and others)

Following accounts are recently adding spam content on userspace. The text is in Polish and starts with a link to what is being promoted. The wikis where it is being added are mainly pih.wiki, Meta, Outreach, en.wikiversity and en.wiki.

List of accounts and IP adresses
Accounts
IP adresses
Links


” Teles (T @ L C S) 08:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gdsjgpdhipgbd

Cross wiki spiders web vandal. --Engie 23:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Matanya 23:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

189.79.215.43

189.79.215.43 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye Unexplained page blanking in a couple of projects, short time before appeared from another IP of the same range. --Microcell 18:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, globally blocked for 1 day by Vituzzu. Trijnstel 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

95.68.127.163 and VUGD

95.68.127.163 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye has (and other different IPs in the same range, easiest to find them is from the history for lv.wikis sandbox, has been vandalizing on several wikis. I assume that VUGD [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] is using the same IP since most of the edits on lv.wiki (and some on en.wiki) have been made from information that the IP puts together. I can't vouch for the quality of the edits on lv.wiki since I don't understand much of the text. Neither the IP not VUGD have answered my questions about their behaviour on lv.wiki. GameOn 16:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add IP-addresses related to this user. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more account added (both - VUGD and Ja1 - are already locked, see here). Trijnstel 16:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One IP adress added. See also the global blockrequest here. Trijnstel 14:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some new IP-addresses. -- Tegel (Talk) 17:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term, recurrent vandalism

See the archives

Cross-wiki sockpuppeteer Fayoma

Fayoma (originally of fr-wiki) vandalises cross-wiki since January 2010 and many sockpuppets have been confirmed til now. Please keep an eye on him.

Thanks in advance. Trijnstel 11:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Emilio Lopez Viñals

Compulsive child editor from Argentina who vandalises on small wiki versions making nonsense mini articles in wrong language mixes, harasses admins cross wiki and more.

List of accounts and IP-adresses
Accounts
IP addresses
Ranges used
Measures taken
  • Acounts globally locked; targets especially ia and ie wiki with highly dynamic IP-addies who change every inlog session so blocking these short time or if needed the ranges (see below) can be done when needed:
  • This abusefilter was created on iawiki to disallow account creations and edits, but is currently disabled due to some more recent false positives.
  • All ranges were globally blocked on 4 August for a week until 11 August.
Other relevant links

Reported by: MoiraMoira 07:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added data by: Mathonius 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the case is solved with the last activity on 22 August. Trijnstel 18:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not solved; I only didn't notice the recent activity on eswiki. Trijnstel 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's back on ia. Almafeta 08:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is back as the previous blocks expired. I've blocked the ranges for another month. Any user feel free to review these blocks (unblock, change period, etc).” Teles (T @ L C S) 09:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of accounts
Named accounts (all locked)
Non-SUL accounts
Known IPs

Hunter Mariner crosswiki vandal

Resolved.

Creates crosswiki large Hunter Mariner and Cape May Point General Store pages with only YouTube links in it, vandalizes the articles Delete key, Ceiling fan on enwiki and much more. At the moment he uses old vandalismaccounts he created and used some years ago. He also uses (apart from his static home IP adress) several open proxies. See en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of David Beals for some of the sockpuppets and the (probably incomplete) list below. The site was blacklisted on enwikiversity, now globally, and the page is protected for creation on several wikis.

List of accounts and IP adress
IP adress
Accounts with homewiki and date of registration noted

Reported by: Trijnstel 16:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additions by: Mathonius 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additions by: Trijnstel 19:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link has been blacklisted globally [1] as per the wikiversity blacklist. If this hinders any investigation or if another link is spammed feel free to undo the addition to the blacklist. EdBever 19:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dune Harrow for more sockpuppets ("MoIoaIm" was used today on en.wikiversity and en.wikibooks). Mathonius 00:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link for new MIoaIm video on enwikiversity: wn.com/2011_Hunter_Mariner. Diversifying. Looking above, wow! What fueled this bee? From 2009? WP SPI refers to email with an unidentified "master account." I can't follow up on enwiki, due to a minor inconvenience there, but someone may wish to contact checkusers there. The CU seems to be vanished, but perhaps there was checkuser-l mention of this at the time. If I weren't a bit behind schedule on stuff, I'd ask for CU here. --Abd 02:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC) CU stuff struck because the master account was probably David Beals, see link to SPI report above. --Abd 02:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have locked all of the remaining accounts in the David Beals category. --Bsadowski1 02:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Beals. That looks like the original account. Thanks, Bsadowski1. It may lessen the burden a little. As long as this guy hits wikiversity, it's pretty easy to catch and block and blacklist, especially with the global patrollers, who are doing a great job. The MO stands out like a sore thumb. --Abd 02:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new link has been blacklisted globally ([2]). EdBever 20:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small Soldiers vandal

Vandalises cross-wiki (on the English, Italian and Dutch Wikipedia so far) on the page "Small Soldiers" or "Small Soldiers (videogame)". Tries to avoid the protection set on those pages. Deletes his user talk pages.

Some IP addresses

Reported by: Trijnstel 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Vituzzu 14:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [3] --Gleiberg 09:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] [4] 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 [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] [5] (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)[reply]

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 [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] [6], creator of the article on Wikipedia po, was blocked two times. On Wikipedia en, on a conversation with me [7], Borgatya [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] [8] 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)[reply]

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 [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] 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 [9], 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 [10], 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 and this one (this request of elimination is, for the moment, canceled). 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 [11] 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 [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits], Trasamundo [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits],Lumastan [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits], Lecen [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] [12], Alarbus [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] [13], Peadar [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] and Borgatya [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism_reports&oldid=3252267"