Vandalism reports/SAS/Archive 7

Warning This is an archive. Please post new vandalism alerts on vandalism reports under the respective section. Thank you.

Current cross-wiki vandalism

Xhosa Wikipedia Vandal: User:Sdfsdfsdf

Status:    Done

Hi. I noticed some obvious vandalism going on here.

Sdfsdfsdf [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]

I tried to clean up a little myself.

And my colleague alerted the Small Wiki Monitoring Team, which has since reverted the edits.

But I was hoping to bring it to community attention here too, in case the user decides to come back and do more of the same.

Thanks so much! Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(The account was blocked and pages deleted). --MF-W 02:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Сross-wiki spam-articles

See d:Q15138170. NBS (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Crosswikivandal on user page of a chinese admin. --Engie (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  Already locked. Trijnsteltalk 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Crosswiki Linkspam. Adds a link to or in case its blocked by blacklist See also here for more information. --S2cchst (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Presently I see no cw spam. See also [1] which shows that it might not be a spambot. --MF-W 21:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This report is outdated, so that you can ignore it and can be closed. S2cchst (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


Crosswiki spamming --S2cchst (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Locked. --MF-W 13:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I don't think a global block would be warranted at this point, but could one of you at least please inform this user that his cross wiki spamming of images with text and captions in English is unlikely to be appreciated on non-English projects? After several warnings he has been blocked for doing that on nl:wiki. See Luxo's. Thanks in advance and regards, Wutsje (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is neither vandalism nor something one would normally be globally blocked for, unless done after multiple warnings, especially since global blocks only apply to IPs. I do agree that the user should refrain from adding this English content, but I'm sure we can reach an agreement rather than block him. Anyway, I'll notify him of this discussion on enwiki and Meta. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI: he has been requested on several projects not to do this. I do however agree that this is not a matter of bad faith, that's why I just asked to point out to him that uploading English content on non-English projects is not likely to be widely appreciated. Wutsje (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
While I very much agree that English captions do not look good, you also have to agree, that it is a very effective method to get things done. Besides making and quoting rules ..., you surely agree, that many articles are miserably written, not nearly comprehensive and: they lack diagrams and illustrations that further visualize the context. When any suitable diagram becomes available under an acceptable license to wikimedia commons, that is maximum BY-SA, BY-SA-ND or BY-NC are not considered "free" enough, this diagram should be added to articles, ASAP, instad of atfer 6 years. To make the articles better, and maybe even to stimulate people to write a couple of lines.
The possible methods to add new content quickly I see, are:
Add the diagram to the "right" category, and hope that people will bother to look through the categories, spot suitable content, add it to articles and write a good caption.
Add the diagram without (English) caption to other articles, and wait until someones bother to merely write a caption (for some reasons I do not fully comprehend, that can take several weeks to months, do you know why?)
Add the diagram with an English caption, and let somebody else translate it.
I see two arguments that have to be weighted against each other. The one being, that it looks bad to have English language captions in a non-English article, the other being, that diagrams are sparse and so are contributors (who contribute knowledge and "content" rather than quotations of rules). ScotXW (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"Add the diagram without (English) caption to other articles, and wait until someones bother to merely write a caption (for some reasons I do not fully comprehend, that can take several weeks to months, do you know why?)". It's likely because some projects have very few active editors and even fewer who can translate QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If you have any specific languages in mind, I can try to get a translation of some specific text for you. (i.e., by asking embassy) PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
@ScotXW: you state I have to agree that this is a very effective way to get things done, but I don't. I don't think it very effective when a Dutch reader visits a Dutch page and finds your image with English labels and an English caption. And even if you don't understand why I think this is very ineffective, you've been asked to stop adding your own image with an English caption to Dutch articles. That should have been enough for you to refrain from continuing but apparently it wasn't. You "excuse" yourself by stating that many articles are "miserably written" but it's obvious you can't judge the quality of articles in foreign languages; you're not even capable of coining a caption in a foreign language. Moreover, a miserably written article doesn't become excellent, just because you add some diagram that's incomprehensible for someone who doesn't read English. And you may be convinced you made a very fine diagram, it's not up to you to decide it should be addad ASAP in contexts you don't understand. Just add your image to the English article, place it in the appropriate category on Commons, maybe add a note to the talk page of corresponding articles in some foreign languages and hope some English reading editor will take notice. It's not as if Wikipedia becomes a bad place just because not every article shows your image. I think you're overestimating yourself. The bottomline however is that if you are urged to stop some behaviour because it is not appreciated on a specific project, and you don't act upon it, you're not fit for contributing in a project that's all about cooperation. Because you refused to listen to reason, your account had been locked on the Dutch Wikipedia. Wikiklaas (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17 thank you for the link, I'll see what this ca do for me.
@Wikiklaas you articulate nicely, but I stopped couting the specious arguments and logic mistakes at 2. Besides the fact, that you can block me, you presented no agrument at all. E.g. in case an illustration does not fit the page, remove it. In case you have a better diagram, please, by all means replace the one I contributed with the better one. Neither did happen. I would not call this contructive at all, because it aint. Good day to you ScotXW (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc.

Cross-wiki vandalism. [2] --Dandelo (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done --Jyothis (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Chilean vandal

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 [3] and [4] 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)


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)

Vandalbot xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker.

  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Massive vandalism by IP addresses in zh-yue Wikipedia

There has been massive vandalism by IP addresses in zh-yue Wikipedia since yesterday. Now an IP address is blanking many normal articles and replacing the content with "{{delete|vandalism}}". As the administrators are not so active there, please find someone to stop it as soon as possible. Thanks. -- 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Local admin handled this just after you posted. --Rschen7754 01:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Long term vandalism of Citadme

There is an user that has been vandalizing the Spanish wikiquote for years. He has been repeteadly banned but he always comes back with a new account. He is now using the username New Wineskins. Currently there are no active administrators, so the only thing I can do is reverting his editions. [10]. --Fjsalguero (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

managed by Savh.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


  1. Faking exif-data to promote his political views DR on Commons and (Commons AN/U section second opinion for deletion review)
  2. Providing false information to OTRS
  3. Already blocked on Commons, enwiki, cswiki, and eowiki for vandalism and as puppetmaster

People like that shouldn't be allowed on any of our projects. We have to keep our NPOV true, otherwise we all can volunteer on Facebook. --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I recommend Hedwig read Global ban, because that is what he is asking for. The user is currently indef blocked on three wikis; however, mere indef block is not adequate to meet the standards for a global ban.
  • On Commons, the user went immediately from a one-day block to indef. Hedwig is correct, there was an apparent false statement submitted with an upload, "own work." Most likely, the user has strong political attachments, and all this is a matter of personal and collective survival. Revert warring over a deletion template is a clear sign of a clueless user, and the user, indeed, only had a handful of contributions to Commons, two files standing, and no prior disruption (though, what is common for naive contributors, some of his files were deleted for missing permission information.) Contrary to what was implied, the photo was not "fake," it was simply modified from the real photo, there was no "image fraud" in that sense, only misleading or deceptive source information.
  • "On a political mission" is not grounds for a block on Commons, in spite of the block reason for this user there, see commons:Blocking policy#Use. The appropriate reason is called "Vandalism," but more normal language would be "insertion of deliberately false information." I see no notification of the user of the Commons:AN/U discussion. There was simply a request and a granted indef, and no other comment. This is not a community ban as contemplated in the Ban policy. The actual offense was serious (I'm assuming an actual lie about "own work," rather than some more complicated situation). However, the indef blocking admin reveals a judgmental political opinion, complicating all this.
  • This user (CentralAuth) is most active, by far, on uk.wikipedia. The user was blocked there twice, one day each, by the same administrator, 9 November 2013, for personal attack, insults, or threats, and on 15 June 2014, for revert warring. The block was upped to block user talk editing but not extended in length. The user argued with and attacked the blocking admin, common with very hot political issues. Those of us who live in more politically settled areas, much safer, may have difficulty understanding all this. However, the talk page block was to be expected. User is in good standing there, with editor and rollbacker privileges. (User is also an "uploader" on ruwiki, but not high contributions.)
  • There is, so far, no sign of continued disruptive editing on ukwiki. The user was questioned about sock puppetry on other wikis, and he claimed it was a necessity, but that he wasn't doing anything like that on So that leaves:
  • enwiki. See the discussion at [11]. The user acknowledges sock puppetry, with User:Керди, readily, was blocked for it, and is off block. The user is civil with Ymblanter, the user who first blocked him on Commons (see also his comment on that user's talk page). The page he created is under AfD, and is trending Keep.
  • cswiki. indef blocked, no contributions showing. I speculate that he created the same page he created on enwiki. On some wikis, simply creating that page would be considered an offense.
  • bewiki. Account Керди is blocked. I haven't researched it, but this was very likely for socking, because the same article was involved, created there by Jeromjerom, who is not blocked, but was warned for socking.[12]
  • bgwiki. (not blocked) Account Керди was active. Same article. So is Jeromjerom, who was blocked for 3RR violation there. I don't see true socking. The article was created by Керди, but the revert warring was all by Jeromjerom. It was all silly (though, I'm sure, important to Jeromjerom), revert warring over a deletion template is the mark of a clueless editor (on both sides, by the way.) He should disclose that sock.
  • eowiki. (indef blocked.) Block reason (partial translation): (Entrudas links to external sites, blocked in enwiki , cswiki and Commons for copyright problems and sock puppets). There is only a single edit showing eowiki, [13],to an article for creation page, requesting creation of the same article as he actually created on other pages wikis.
  • User has also created the same page on a few other wikis.
  • This is cross-wiki single-purpose editing. It is not contrary to policy. However, if it causes local disruption, persisting, on enough wikis that he's independently banned (not merely blocked), this is grounds for ad hoc action by a steward (which will normally be refused if the editor has positive contributions on any of the wikis, such as ukwiki here), or a global ban discussion, but only after the preconditions are satisfied.
  • I had thought of suggesting that Hedwig to to SRG, which is where a lock request would go, but am not. Properly, this should go nowhere, as yet, beyond warning the user. I will warn and attempt to guide Jeromjerom in some location and by email, particularly about that sock on bgwiki, and, as well, on his unnecessary disruptive editing, and caution him, also, on cross-wiki page creation, he's doing it way too quickly. He's harming his cause.
  • My own political position, I'll disclose: I stand for opposing parties learning to collaborate and cooperate, and it could start here. But if people are banned for having strong political positions, that can't happen. We can seek neutrality, and from there, begin to explore cooperation. It doesn't happen instantly, but it's possible. That is, I have a long-term agenda, myself, but it requires that we stand for neutrality policy. Even where I disagree with the views of others. --Abd (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If Керди, Хьюго and Рома are sockpuppets of Jeromjerom, then there were also abuses in ukwiki (as users have SUL): block evasion by Керди[14] when Jeromjerom was blocked; voting by two accounts in desysop nomination (Jeromjerom and Хьюго).--Anatoliy (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Block evasion by Керди, as a sock, was admitted and documented already. I have seen no evidence linking Хьюго with Jeromjerom; both accounts are unblocked, it's unlikely. Рома was not a sock, but an earlier account name, as Jeromjerom points out below. So all that amounts to one substantial claim, already acknowledged on ukwiki, block evasion through w:uk:User:Керди -- acknowledged as Jeromjerom 20 June 2014 --, and that is over and done with.--Abd (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Керди - yes, this is my "puppet"[15]. I found it! Рома - that's me! At first I was Jeromjerom, then changed its name to Рома, then again in Jeromjerom [16]. Who is Хьюго I have no idea!. --Jeromjerom (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

With regard to cross-wiki spam .... Articles I created several other projects is not cross-wiki spam! Some people thought the Russian Wikipedia article about Putin incorrect and tried under false pretenses to remove it. They began to accuse me of spam, but it's not spam! Look at other wikis I did not create the article: in Vietnamese, Romanian, Malaysian, Lithuanian, Georgian and so on ... - it's other people. But even being accused of spam. Today, the English Wikipedia article left, finds her significant. I was blocked on Wikipedia for one week. Now I can edit it. In the Czech Wikipedia is blocked for that twice tried to create an article that was removed twice. In Durga wiki I'm active and did not do bad. As for photos ... it was not "fake," it was simply modified from the real photo, there was no "image fraud"!!!! --Jeromjerom (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions may be good, but your methods are bad.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Abd: First I'd like to say thank you. Your research is thorough and I really admire your goal of having communication before blocking. It can lead a vandal/bad user to be a good and trusted user. Further: disclosing the ban on enwiki here is a good thing as well, thanks for that as well.
Back to the case. I did read global ban and I believe this request is fully within scope. Global ban is to be used in order to protect our projects. Let me reply to your comments one by one:
  1. Revert warring over a deletion template is a clear sign of a clueless user SUL tells me that this user has a total of 8,031 edits as of 6/24/2014, not counting his sockpuppets. He's surely not a clueless user.
  2. No image fraud Faking meta data is fraud. Period. If we can't rely on meta data, we are in big trouble and violation needs to be punished accordingly.
  3. Political mission is no reason for a block Very true and it has to stay that way. Otherwise Wikipedia/Commons can't be trusted and are useless. See my point above as well. His approach is different: He's trying to push an agenda by using sockpuppets, intimidation, and fraud. This is not a neutral point of view. It is not always possible to be 100% neutral, granted.
  4. Insertion of deliberately false information. That's my point. We don't need more false information, we need more reliable, true information. There is no place in our projects for people trying to pull us into a political conflict and making Wikipedia useless for reporting on such events. Our readers have to come first and they deserve a Wikipedia that is as correct, true, and neutral as humanly possible.
  5. I see no notification of the user of the Commons:AN/U discussion The user got informed about the block by the blocking admin A.Savin, that is sufficient for obvious vandalism.
  6. However, the indef blocking admin reveals a judgmental political opinion, complicating all this. Log entry: (Vandalism: fake image uploader, on political mission) It can be argued if the political mission remark should have been placed. IMHO it helps later on to identify what was going on. The block reason was fake image uploader and therefor perfectly ok.
  7. ukwikipedia: User is in good standing there, with editor and rollbacker privileges. This user can't be considered in good standing with two recent blocks for edit warring and personal attacks.
  8. The user argued with and attacked the blocking admin, common with very hot political issues Hot political issues don't give users a free pass to violate policy and commit vandalism.
  9. There is, so far, no sign of continued disruptive editing on ukwiki. Seems like it, but that doesn't give this user a white vest.
  10. The user acknowledges sock puppetry That is great, saves some time. Doesn't wash him clean either.
  11. enwikipedia:The page he created is under AfD, and is trending Keep. The page he created has never been discussed or scrutinized by me. As far as I can tell the topic itself is way in scope. The topic is not the problem, the user is.
  12. cswikipedia:On some wikis, simply creating that page would be considered an offense. Log entry: (Jednorázový provokační účet) roughly meaning provoking account only.
  13. bewikipedia: Sockpuppet Керди blocked. Log entry: (Забаронена выкарыстоўваць віртаў для галасавання) My Belarus is lousy and so is google translator. As far as I could see, it's a reentry of the faked image.
  14. bgwikipedia:clueless user He's far from clueless given the fact of +8k edits and being a sockmaster.
  15. eowikipedia: preventive blocking?
  16. User has also created the same page on a few other wikis. Nothing wrong with that in general. As I said, the topic is fine (IMHO)
  17. However, if it causes local disruption See all the warnings on many projects, just again on enwiki he's complaining about removal of his double votes. Comment in log: rv, you disrupted this AfD enough with your socks, now keep away from it. That has to stop. In my simple mind, the user knows what he's doing, so there needs to be a global block and that is that. If the community decides that an +8k user still doesn't know the ropes, fine. In that case I am willing to work with Abd to resolve this issue for good. If Abd want's me to work with him that is and Jeromjerom agrees as well. Nevertheless, I think enuf said/written here.

  Question: Shall I transfer this discussion to m:SRG? --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Hedwig.
  • Clueless. Yes, that number of edits would ordinarily indicate an experienced user. However, his behavior was clearly clueless. He gained no advantage by revert warring over a speedy deletion template. He gained no advantage by blatant, obvious, red-flag-block-me socking. Sure, he might be knowledgeable and experienced but temporarily deranged. It happens. What I'm seeing, now, is a user who admits he made mistakes. That's a great step, seriously problematic users don't do that.
  • Image fraud. Small point: "image fraud" would mean a fake image, i.e, a constructed image that makes something appear to have happened that did not happen. What he is alleged to have done is "copyright fraud," i.e, claiming "own work" if it wasn't. I have asked the user about this, and, so far, he has not responded. He might be embarrassed, or he might not yet understand the importance of this. This is a very serious charge. Grounds for a global lock, I don't think so, but grounds for a ban from Commons, quite possibly. It was the real basis for the block on Commons, not political mission.
  • No notification. That means no notification that a block/ban was being considered. This does not mean that the block was wrong. The user's talk page access was not shut down, so he was not banned, but only blocked. He could appeal it. He has not. (And I would not advise him to appeal just yet.)
  • Opinion of blocking admin. The opinion was not about Jeromjerom, but about the event shown in the deleted photo, it was a judgment A.Savin made about the Ukrainian political body shown in the photo, that's all. It's not related to the situation of Jeromjerom himself, only to the history of the block. Because the admin claimed "political mission," his own possible political view takes on some small relevance. But the issue for global bans would be local bans (a bare minimum of two) as a basis, and the user is not banned anywhere yet, as "ban" is defined in global ban policy.
  • Deliberately false information. Again, the charge of weight. However, the evidence has been deleted. so what we can discuss is hearsay, from the Commons deletion request. I have been advising the user to simply tell the truth about that image, i.e., what he knows. If he lied, say so. But sometimes things happen that we don't understand. I don't know as a proven fact that he lied. There is no pattern of false report, so far.
  • global disruption. Yes, there was global disruption. Take a clueless user (clueless about deletion policy) and let him go cross-wiki and create a highly controversial article -- even though found to be a notable topic, eventually, on enwiki --, and it's Very Important to him, mix and stir, and watch disruption bubble up. Global disruption has stopped, with, AFAIK, one small exception, on enwiki (where he made an allowed request).
  • removal of double votes. No, that was not what he complained about. The user believed that he had been told he could now, off block, participate in the AfD. He then made a comment which was deleted, by another administrator. He complained about that, to the admin. I personally think the deletion of comments was unnecessary, but this user needs to understand how communities make decisions, and to not take everything so personally. What he had added would have created some push toward deletion, actually, because the argument was irrelevant, and he didn't understand that. (Supposedly that shouldn't matter, but editors are human and irritated by socking and by irrelevant arguments.) He still thinks inclusion/exclusion -- or content -- are about "truth," a classic newbie error. He reported facts that, if found in reliable source, would be a basis for inclusion, but he didn't give reliable source. Classic Argument Not To Make in a Deletion Discussion. Had the discussion closed with Delete, he may not know, I suspect, what he could do. He'd need advice and help, probably, with a Deletion Review. However, it didn't go that way.
  • Working with him. Thanks, Hedwig. That could be valuable.
  • Vandalism. Commons policy about blocking includes as a reason "vandalism," and includes the "insertion of false information" as an example. Cross-wiki, however, removing a speedy deletion tag or recreating a deleted article, where the article is possibly notable isn't called "vandalism." In this context, "vandalism" is an inflammatory charge, because vandals destroy or deface things. Including false information happens all the time, because people misinterpret sources or hold opinions and interpret fact according to their opinion, and can err. Most people would not call a false claim of ownership of an image "vandalism," though. They would call it "false claim." And presumably the person knows whether they took the photo or not! So what we really have here is a single incident, that is being presented as if it were a pattern.
  • Political mission. This is real. This can be a basis for a ban on a wiki, when that mission manifests as a pattern of disruptive behavior. However, this is not a global ban reason. A continued pattern of disruptive behavior can be.
  • Steward requests/Global. I recommend not, though it is your right to do so. Without a global ban, per policy, locking a user with his history could be disruptive. Likely: a ukwiki sysop or respected user requests unlock and, this being effectively a global ban, of a user with contributions of weight, without a global ban RfC, it's granted, so we are back to square one.
  • Global ban process. Hedwig, you have given arguments, some of them possibly relevant to a global ban. But a global ban RfC, per policy, requires precedent specific conditions which do not exist. He is not "banned" on any wiki, as defined in the policy. Premature global ban RfCs waste a lot of time. Please don't go there. This problem can be addressed much more simply. If problems continue, there are remedies available short of an RfC that might avoid it.
  • The way forward. Hedwig, you have already agreed to it. Let's support this user, guiding him toward constructive engagement. Let's assure him that he can continue to make constructive contributions, and warn him if he strays from that, with warnings that are not hostile, but supportive. I have his user talk page watchlisted, I get email notifications of changes there. So far, I see him responding positively (by comparison). Let's encourage that.
  • And thanks, again. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the fact that broke the rules. In the Ukrainian Wikipedia I created 511 articles. 2 articles are considered Good articles. Contribution to home Wikipedia is great. If you want to block me currently, - then block!..... but, please, not in the Ukrainian Wikipedia... I have nothing more to say. --Jeromjerom (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Public advice: send me an email through the wiki system. I will respond and you will then have my personal email address. Do this with several users you trust. Do it with anyone who consents to email from you, on-wiki, and preferably do it with a ukwiki sysop. If you are globally locked, you will be unable to log into your account, anywhere. But you will, if you have done this, still be able to communicate with users by email, outside the wiki system, and they may be able to assist. I, for one, would advise you by email. I would not appeal on-wiki unless I saw a strong and clear basis. Right now, if you were locked, I'd consider appeal, but it would be much better if it were someone else to start.
Let's hope this is just a precaution, it won't be needed. I don't think you will be locked, or that there will be further problems, so no more blocks, either. Keep it that way! --Abd (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Jeromjerom will not be locked. There is nothing within the policy on global locking that would justify such an action, as the user is in good standing on multiple projects that they contribute to. As for a global ban, this is the wrong venue to request it, though I don't see that any request to ban would be valid under policy either. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ajraddatz. I completely agree. However, there were some real grounds for concern in the report. I have addressed them, here and on the user's ukwiki talk page. He has acknowledged now, everything he did: he lied in the Commons discussion about having taken the photo himself,[17] he revert warred and socked (with one sock that I know of), feeling harassed over an ethnic/political conflict, and he is unlikely to do these things again, but he is now visible and will be quickly seen if something else comes up. The matter of image metadata may remain a mystery, but once we know that it wasn't his image, he got it from somewhere, that's not important. Thanks to everyone who participated here. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 25 June 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 and that he represents the Walt Disney company, Pinewood Shepperton, the Romanian Copyright Office, and other private and public organizations [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. 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 usually 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)


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

It seems mainly replacing links to a paper with links to the same paper from a different website, could be a well intentioned user, suggest that if behavior persist the user be contacted. Snowolf How can I help? 06:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


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

  Locked, obvious spambot, in future defer to SRG for faster response times, as this page is seldom monitored sadly. Snowolf How can I help? 06:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Massive addition of pages

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
If it is of interest to the global community, Abd has started a crosswiki campaign to remove the speedy deletion tags from the userpages. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk. And what does this have to do with vandalism? --Abd (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix Adi Solo

This account has been creating inappropriate pages on several small wikis with little or no administrator activity and is one of several socks of the account Hendrix Adi Surya (no enwiki sockpuppet investigation exists because all of the socks have either been blocked on sight or reported directly to administrators). The pages created by this account are either in Malay or English, regardless of the project's language. Many of the pages do not have enough context to identify their subject, but the ones that do are either hoaxes or about made-up subjects. For example, the page Hendrix Adi Surya on the Zulu Wikipedia is about a 13 year old boy called Hendrix Adi Surya, who is apparently a TV presenter and an actor starring in several major movies. However, a Google search for "Hendrix Adi Surya" does not reveal any sources that confirm this. I flagged this page and 2 other pages on the Zulu Wikipedia for speedy deletion as hoaxes, but decided it would be quicker to report the account to a global sysop when I saw the extent of the cross-wiki page creation. --Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done I will organise a clean up. We do have other data sources for this LTA, so reporting it and flagging it is worthwhile. I have also modified one of our global filters to see if we can better catch some of these edits at the time of creation. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Where are these data sources that you are referring to? Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no public data available; there is sometimes consequential data when checks are made, such that remnant data of known vandals is sometimes available. In this case, there is data available to checkusers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


POV pushing by constantly putting the same map Azerbaijan in its region (de-facto).svg in violation of the established consensus (and despite numerous reversals by other users) as was agreed upon in the talk page of the Azerbaijan country article in English Wikipedia. This user has done the same unilateral POV changes with this map in the Azerbaijan articles in other Wikipedias. Y Sonoran 11:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fahmi muhyiddin

Completely broke the front page of the IEG Grants page and any other page by adding nonsense to the "Light Grey" color template here on Meta with these edits: [24] [25]. I wasn't able to find another venue on meta to report obvious disruption like this, but I apologize if this belongs in a more appropriate venue. --I JethroBT (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly vandalism. Looks like a confused user in the wrong wiki. Anyway, RFH is the local venue for reporting meta-related stuff but this page also works since many meta admins have this page on their watchlist. --Glaisher (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


SPAM-account or SPAM-BOT. Same change to different projects and languages. -- 09:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  Done. Account locked. -- Tegel (Talk) 10:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for reporting. -- Tegel (Talk) 21:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for the report. -- Tegel (Talk) 17:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

promo pushing Brandon Richardson


IPv4 address:

IPv6 addresses, all from 2602:30a:2e55:c520::/64 range:

These accounts and IP addresses have been used (most of them solely) to promote the actor Brandon Richardson cross-wiki since March this year, flagging it as a featured article on pt:wiki ([26]), and referring to the non-existant English article as the source for translation (e.g. [27]). Some of the accounts have been blocked on one or two wikis already, because of being a "Brandon Richardson vandal" ([28]), for block evasion and/or referring to en:User:Danny.ESQ ([29], [30]; Danny.ESQ was blocked in 2012 for the same reasons), or generally using multiple accounts already ([31], [32] **, [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]). One of the accounts was blocked just yesterday (**) but I wasn't sure of any follow-up. With kind regards — Mar(c). 07:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Since 2012 actually: w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danny.ESQ/Archive. --Glaisher (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned that link too. The accounts and IPs listed all edited/created the current articles (cross-wiki) and the wikidata entry d:Q15980114, but there's the obvious duck connection indeed. With kind regards — Mar(c). 09:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Significant issue, all aligned accounts from my investigation, with links being added to programs/movies/etc. Should all be deleted IMNSHO and I have started some of that notification. I also see these accounts that are aligned

 — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles at WPs


Previously deleted at WPs


 — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also suspected editing accounts

which participated in deletion conversations at w:en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_August_2#Prince Richardson

The article was also deleted in May following a AfD on frwiki (fr:Discussion:Brandon Richardson/Suppression). Litlok (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Articles have continued to be recreated, in same name or now with a slight variation. New account Don718. IP addresses blocked, title blacklist to be put in place, and watchers for small wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bsadowski1: --Rschen7754 16:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


Current vandalism. Self-promotional pages + 3RR. No active local admins on es.wikisource. I request an provisional Steward/GS action. --Alan (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Now it's x-wiki (ie: tswiki). Alan (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) Blocked for 2 hours on Vogone (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


Continuous vandalism in fi.wikinews --Syum90talk 13:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Locked. Thanks, Savhñ 13:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This IP vandalizes John Fitzgerald Kennedy's pages cross-wiki. He introduces an appointment intentionally misrepresented. --Syum90messages 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have placed a global block on the IP address on all wikis except meta, so hopefully that will slow this down.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)



Removing content on cs.wikisource. --Matiia (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and then locked by Savh - QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


Removing content on cswikibooks --Matiia (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All related accounts locked and underlying IP adress globally blocked. Thanks for the report. Savhñ 20:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


Status:    Done

All recent contributions to Kongo Wikipedia should be deleted and this activity noted in the relevant place. (Note also recent auto-created user over there.) - dcljr (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked globally, deleted pages. --Rschen7754 23:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

Status:    Not done

All these IP(v6)'s have added fake information into article Professor Layton vs. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney in multiple wikis (edit: added reference for the disputed information yesterday). In addition, user has said other users as idiots + left an abusive (machine-translated) message on my non-existing IP talk page on ja- and zh-wiki (you can check this from deletion history on wikies mentioned above). Or is global block for IPv6 range 2604:2000:b8e1:8d00:// possible? (not possbile I guess) -- 16:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  Closed as stale. This seems that it may be something that is better managed by protection, and abuse filters rather than trying to capture by IP addresses.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Status:    Not done
Interwiki link spammer, changes official home page links on article "PokerStars" in many wikis to tracking link with source=xxxxx string. Those edits have been reverted now two times on many wikis so global block would be good. (should this be posted to "Global blocks" page?) -- 12:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Added one more IP spamming tracking links. -- 14:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Not certain that IP blocks are going to manage this situation. Sounds more like something to be managed by abuse filters and protection.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Still active in various wikipedia versions. Also known as xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker, the same vandalism from both IPs. --mfb (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
..and with IP xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker. I have been reverting those edits for many days now.... --Hemuska (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cooking Mama Limited related

Same person behind xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker (ip range blocked 2 weeks on enwiki, single ip was blocked on frwiki 3 days) and xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker (was blocked 60h on enwiki and currently blocked 6 months on frwiki) and others IPs but i forgot them. Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

He's now coming back with xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker Can someone block him ? I don't have time chasing after him on every Wikipedia. Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  Closed Resurrecting xwiki case as it is useful data, and relabelling to the reference data. No action take at this time as it is a dynamic IP address.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Status:    Locally handled

Vandalism on lt.wikipedia, article w:lt:Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija --Any comment?Syum90 16:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

He has already stopped.--Any comment?Syum90 17:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Javad Ramezani

Status:    Not done

Persistent vandalism/spam on multiple Wikipedias and Wikidata. At least 10 Wikipedias are involved (see this Google Search). I have requested a global title block. Mushroom (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Stale request. Please identify some specific edits, as it would seem that this may be more appropriately handled by AbuseFilter, as managing using those IP address range will be troublesome.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Carlos y Emma

Status:    Not done

Repeated vandalism in es.wikiquote. Please deleted insults. --Irwin Xmas 18:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Not done There is enough local admins to deal with this. See this list, and I would guess a contact page exists on the wiki to contact admins.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Status:    Not done
See also: User:COIBot/XWiki/ — Revi 17:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not certain that this is a global spammer, it looks like a link update. If you check the old url they basically align in content and look, including the Mumag component.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Indefblocked in Russian Wikipedia. In Meta created a user page with attacks and insults that can be seen on his user pages in all projects Wikimedia. --Petrov Victor (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Blanked the meta user page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Vlad Georgian (Beleiutz sockpuppet)

Status:    Done

The above-noted account is a sockpuppet of the cross-wiki vandal Beleiutz. It has the same editing interests (Jorge, Paula Seling, Mihaela Rădulescu, Disney, etc.) and same modus operandi (uploading copyvios of these Romanian celebrities [42] [43], entering nonsense edit summaries [44], etc.) The account's already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet on Romanian Wikipedia but has been recently active on other wikis. Please globally lock this account and if possible perform a CU to locate additional accounts. (See the long-term abuse report for further details.) —Psychonaut (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  Done thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Javad Ramezani

Status:    Done

User:Billinghurst kindly added Javad Ramezani to the global blacklist yesterday, but the Iranian user (constantly changing IP) is back again today, no doubt in circumventing the listing by adding new articles in non-Latin alphabet based Wikipedias. Apart from the already-present Japanese entry, the most recent addition is w:mr:जे रमज़ानचा. I've merged the newest item on Wikidata to the older item, d:Q18729000 to keep a track of the abuse history (more here), and upon Billinghurst's request, I'm reporting this here to ask what can be done next. Jared Preston (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There is one article which wasn't catched by the global blacklist: so:Javad ramezani --Pasleim (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Can be archived, there is now a global filter watching, and we have been deleting.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Many IP addresses for same user

The IP editor who is the subject of the section immediately below has officially gone ape-shit, creating hundreds of junk articles under many different IP addresses (1 IP4 and I think 19 IP6 addresses) at the following wikis:

Follow the links (to respective Special:NewPages) for the relevant IP addresses. There's too many of them bother posting them here. Looks like the IP6 addresses all start with "2602:30A:C04E:1400" and the IP4 address is xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker. - dcljr (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Creation of several stubs in English on non-English wikis for the sole purpose of pushing them past article-count milestones, which the user then "helpfully" reported at Wikimedia News (now reverted). All the user's contribs at non-English Wikipedias still have to be deleted. (luxotool has been unreliable for me this evening, so here's the individual contribs pages: ch, dz, ik, tum) - dcljr (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Or should I have reported this at Steward requests/Miscellaneous? I can never remember... - dcljr (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Upon furthur reflection, I suppose under the AGF principle this really should have been reported at Steward requests/Miscellaneous. But I'm keeping this here in case someone can tell that this is a longtime vandal acting more subtly under a different guise. (Please delete the pages once you've investigated — unless it's not necessary to wait, of course.) - dcljr (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: Same douche-baggery from 2602:30A:C04E:1400:F0A8:9C28:2ABE:C89F xwiki-contribsxwiki-date (alt)STIP infoWHOISrobtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker — but this user has already been blocked. - dcljr (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This is still Decker, isn't it? I blocked the IPs and deleted the pages. --MF-W 09:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You'd know better than I. It didn't seem quite as clear-cut to me this time, since the pages were, apart from being in English on non-English wikis, basically well-formed pages that might (conceivably) have just been from an over-eager, misguided newbie. Still, I have no problem with someone else reacting "with maximum prejudice" *wink*, especially after the 2nd IP6 showed up. Thanks for investigating and deleting. - dcljr (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, wait... these pages have not been deleted yet: ch, dz, ik, tum. - dcljr (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Now done. - dcljr (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC) ...

Cross-wiki spamming with copyviols. These are only the IP numbers I found reverting in n:it:Discussione:La Georgia ha decretato lo stato di guerra/Commenti, there are likely others. Targets talk pages and the object has a distinct pattern. -- Codicorumus  « msg 21:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)



Global spamer , This user only Add Your weblink in Global wiki Project all days --Florence (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
also [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] --Florence (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
this user is now active in global project in whatsapp articles with hoaxes --Florence (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
this user blocked in 8 local project - not need maked global blocked?? --Florence (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
this user back with name Sushilmishra bot [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] --Florence (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted; and having the report at User:COIBot/XWiki/ regenerated. Please check it for any links (it won't be ready for an hour or two). It is my understanding that the accounts have been locked.

@فلورانس: It would helpful with reports if the domain being abused is clearly identified. We can run reports on domains with COIBot and generate data, including the names of the offending accounts. Being more explicit about the underlying problem than the name of the vandal can bring about a better result.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks dear @Billinghurst: this user used 2 link site: User:COIBot/XWiki/ <this page created with COIBot or with user? --Florence (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
back with new user name :) Davidtamsot ( local | logs | global )

--Florence (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

vandalising the on the wikimania 2015 wiki, such as the main page there. [45] Aude (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is resolved now. Aude (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Long-term, recurrent vandalism


Alvarosevilladesign [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits]

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 [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits], Daytonarolexboston [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] and Bonsairolex [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits], 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 [46], [47], [48]) 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 [49], in eu.wp [50], in mi.wp [51], 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)