Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Vip)
Jump to: navigation, search

Please read Project:How to handle unwanted edits to understand what is vandalism to Wikivoyage.

Anyone can help handle unwanted edits on Wikivoyage. A couple of bad edits can be reverted quickly and easily by the first person to see them. See How to revert a page to see how to do this yourself.

However, administrators have some tools that enable them to quickly revert edits by a particular user, and also to temporarily block repeat offenders. Use this page when you need assistance from an administrator, for example when vandalism is occurring at a rapid rate or over an extended period of time. Or even if you have been managing a vandalism attack but are now going offline.

Please list the IP address or user name (use the format [[Special:Contributions/Username|Username]] or [[Special:Contributions/IP Address|IP Address]] as the header), pages touched and damage done. Sign your name using ~~~~ after your report. Put the person's IP or username in the edit summary.

See also Project:User ban nominations.

Current alerts[edit]

User:, User:, User:[edit]

See revision history of the Szentendre article. This is not a high-volume vandal, but I note the vandalism here, which so far consists of repeatedly deleting thumbnails without explanation. These IPs are currently blocked for 24 hours, but as this seems to be a dynamic-IP user, expect a move to another IP. We should suspend the user for increasingly long periods without notice to its user talk pages, so as not to give it whatever weird satisfaction such attention might draw. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See also User contributions for -Sombrero19. Currently up to 1 week's suspension, along with User: Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I suspect this one too User: --Traveler100 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Another east European IP address changing destinations User: Although not knowing if this is a real correction or not have left the edit, not sure if should undo change --Traveler100 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The hallmark of this vandal seems to be removing links to Budapest, in addition to removing images from Hungarian articles. Somebody probably had an awful experience in Hungary... ϒpsilon (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Massive spam account creation attempt[edit]

I just took a look at the abuse filter that catches the annoying Telstra vandal, and I was shock to see that since yesterday more than 500 attempts to create (presumably spam) accounts were made.

I don't think this has anything to do with the Telstra user, but just lucky that the filter blocked this automated account creation process as coming from one of their IP's.

This looks like a serious attack. What can we do to prevent this happening from an IP range that is not blocked? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

They are still going strong, attempting 4 account creations every minute. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like I made a mistake in the ip range detection, and a quick fix has stopped this. Please ignore for now. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone is deleting stuff from Mexico city articles[edit]

Please have a look at this Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm especially concerned about this edit, which reminds me very much of Internet Brands' M.O. immediately post-fork. I'd love for someone to help suss out what needs to be done here; whether this user seems like an ordinary vandal or something more. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I only see this on one page with the User:Lucianaviott, have posted a warning. Are there similar edits with other user IDs or IPs? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Turbo8000 is unilaterally changing the spelling of Nazca and Cuzco again[edit]

According to this diff, he's back again and his M.O. seems to not have changed much. Quite frankly I fear that words won't help, but it is worth a try... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

And I'll still do it. NaSca and CuSco is the one correct spelling which the government uses. Turbo8000 17:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I've rolled back all edits to Peru, because frankly, I don't think it's our job to sort through the edits of users who are clearly unwilling to work within our practices of discussion and consensus. I'm in favour of a 2 week ban; this is simply the same game, and there's no point in assuming good faith here. Any other opinions? JuliasTravels (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I always assume good faith. I can do something: if you ban me for 2 weeks, you'll loose me as an editor here FOREVER. It's unfair to put a bad image for a country, and I don't agree with many many of your personal policies. Let me correct all the articles as I know, gringos ignorantes. Turbo8000 19:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Not really, go for it, I say. Ibaman (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There is support for Turbo8000's position, though it's not as clear-cut as he thinks. (w:talk:Cusco, es:w:Discusión:Cuzco, w:talk:Nazca, es:w:Discusión:Nasca). Apart from his assertions of official Peruvian spellings (irrelevant in an English travel guide, unless we want to change Warsaw to Warszawa, etc.) nobody here has addressed the substance of the arguments. Turbo8000, you have made good contributions to en-Wikivoyage, and I would hate to see you leave, but consensus-building through reasoned, civil discussion is the Wikimedia way. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#2016-03-04 incident. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits to the country article template[edit]

Have a look at these edits - I thought, I'd raise it here, please move it to another place if that is more appropriate. What should we do? Edited to add: I have rolled back the edits in question for now. I fear the user may be under some kind of misapprehension due to talk page messages and have written on his talk page. What else should be done at this point? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, nothing. Thanks for taking the correct action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring by dynamic IP user in Hajar Mountains article[edit]

Please see Revision History. I am blocking every IP that continues to edit war for 3 months for block evasion after an initial block of 2 hours, then 1 day. There are so many IPs that it's a waste of time to post to each new one's user talk page, and no user talk page or edit messages are read, anyway. I'd suggest a filter is urgently needed for this authoritarian user who insists on his/her own way and refuses to engage in any discussion about his/her edits. The point isn't the relative triviality of the edits themselves, but that this user is irritating people and engaging in intolerable edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Realizing that blocking dynamic IP addresses over and over again is a total waste of time, I've protected the article, allowing only autoconfirmed users to edit it for a day. I think the protection should be extended, as this authoritarian user will undoubtedly revert again tomorrow. Please comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
And now, look at the user creation log. A whole bunch of names that obviously have to be blocked... Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe the protection would better be extended? I support this measure, in case the need is confirmed. Ibaman (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I think so, but the better solution would be to create an effective filter and lift the protection. If the filter won't be ready by tomorrow, though, we should probably protect the article for a few days or a week. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, I think we'd better extend the protection for at least another day, to give time for a filter to be created. We need to filter out these dynamic IPs, which should also take care of the troll new usernames containing my screen name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I also reverted the IP user's edit in Central Coastal Oman applied protection for 2 days. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
These are awfully draconian measures for a relatively minor issue of wording choice. Powers (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not about wording choice, and I'm pretty shocked that you're reacting this way. It's about a single person attempting to dictate the precise language s/he wants, through edit warring, block evasion, and finally, making up a series of abusive usernames. This IP user's actions, as you can see in the talk threads I linked, were upsetting one of the better content-creators on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I see I didn't link the talk pages: Talk:Central Coastal Oman, Talk:Hajar Mountains#Syntax. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that edit warring is bad, but sometimes our actions contribute. In cases like these, where the editor's change is not plainly unacceptable, I prefer to switch to a slow revert mode before breaking out the block function and the protection tools. Powers (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Did you see how many times this editor had warred before further action was taken? Would you have wasted weeks reverting? Days? This IP user was obviously willing to edit war forever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
No, that's precisely my point. The reason he/she was able to do it so often is because his/her edits were so quickly reverted. A more patient reversion process would have been less antagonistic and increased the chances of the user losing interest before an edit war developed. Powers (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You're suggesting that the reverts should have stood for a day or so each time? I really don't think that would have worked, nor that people should be able to successfully edit war, instead of achieving a consensus behind edits that are controversial, no matter how relatively unimportant they may be. It's the principle of collaboration, not dictating things unilaterally, that's central to Wikis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not the importance, it's the harmfulness. These were not blatantly harmful edits, merely ones that you disagreed with (legitimately). From a neutral perspective, the natural response to having one's edits repeatedly reverted is to repeatedly revert them back. That's an edit war, yes, but it takes two to have an edit war. It's more productive, in situations where the edit is not plainly harmful, to take a step back and let the user's edit stand for a bit rather than antagonizing the user by repeatedly and immediately reverting what seems like a legitimate change to that user. Powers (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(unindent)Let me recap here. In these two edits, User: removed a gloss of the word wadi and the phrase "although technically". These are minor edits at best, which I agree did not improve the article, but neither were they actively harmful. User:StellarD then re-added the "although technically" wording with an explanation. A different IP user, User: then changed "technically" to "correctly" -- a perfectly valid edit. This was immediately met by User:Ikan Kekek reverting the change, accusing the IP user of "edit warring", sarcastically referring to "overcorrecting", and suggesting that the user "argue with OED on the talk page". Unless I'm missing a fine point in the chronology here, or if you had prior dealings with one or both IP addresses, this is a stunningly hostile reaction to what seem to me be to be perfectly normal edits. Note that this all occurs before the edit warring actually begins. I really hope you can help me understand what I'm missing here. Powers (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If I may, it seems like Ikan's accusation of edit warring hinged on the assumption that User: and User: were the same user using different IP addresses. Given the fact that both of those edits were to the same word in the same article, occurred less than a day apart, and came with similarly snippy edit summaries - and especially given how the situation developed afterward - it's hard if not impossible to argue against the accuracy of that assumption. That being the case, the IP user was indeed edit warring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. And Powers, you're actually defending edit warring as a "natural response"? This is a Wiki. The natural response should be to discuss the desired edit and come to a consensus before redoing that edit, not to restore it over and over and then create a bunch of abusive screen names after the article is protected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
And by the way, yes, I do strongly believe I've dealt with this IP user before, as I've dealt with a dynamic IP user that uses identical edit summaries, edit wars, seldom posts to talk pages and then always refuses to sign their posts, and is always changing anything vaguely reminiscent of American English to a quasi-British English with typos, while also eliminating nice points of style. I usually grudgingly tolerate their edits, but whenever I push back, this user tends to immediately revert my edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
As I was tagged here, I would like to add a couple of point to the discussion. I believe the anonymous editor on Hajar Mountains and Central Coastal Oman likely earlier edited Dhofar; please see Talk:Dhofar#October_to_May. It may also be this same individual who has been changing times in other Oman articles from 12-hour to 24-hour, albeit in a random fashion so that for example Muscat is now a mess with both formats in use. And now s/he is rewriting Omani history. –StellarD (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
My point is that there was no edit warring until after Ikan already accused the user of such. Unless, as I said, I've erred in my chronology somewhere, in which case I'd gladly accept correction. I would much prefer to be wrong about this. Powers (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
It's already been explained to you why you're wrong. Please reread this thread. I feel like you have a strong tendency to support problem users instead of fellow admins and constructive users, even to the extent of favoring them and making contortions like this in order to claim that a dynamic IP user wasn't edit warring until s/he happened to use the same IP a couple of times to edit war. There, I made it explicit. And I don't appreciate feeling undercut on that basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to identify why you felt these users were a problem, but you're not cooperating. I laid out the timeline above; where did I go wrong? Powers (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in, but I think this thread is suggesting accusations of bad faith that are not helpful. Can we agree that: 1) this particular edit was a minor issue, and on its own not enough to justify an escalation, but 2) if Ikan or another trusted user says that there is a history that justifies escalation we should take them at their word unless there is specific reason for concern? We don't want to bite the newbies, but we also shouldn't be making life more difficult for respected users for exercising their best judgement when they say they've identified a problem. Assuming those two points are agreeable, can we let this thread rest and move on? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree with #2. There's no need to simply take anyone at their word when we have full edit histories available that can clearly document a pattern of abuse. At the moment, though, I'm not seeing it, and I've asked for help understanding what I'm missing. I am very concerned because since losing several contributors a couple of years ago we now seem to have taken the opposite stance, of complete intolerance for anything resembling contentious behavior. We have lost the patience that was once this community's hallmark. If Ikan had good reason to accuse the IPs of edit warring, I think he should be able to explain what that reason was. If there was no good reason, then we need to address how a baseless accusation can escalate a situation and lead to a block such as the one imposed here. Powers (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I say good riddance to the "patience" you describe. Perhaps that type of naïveté was a luxury we could afford when we were a smaller community with a proportionately lower rate of vandalism. But things are different now that we've grown, and Peter and Jan's departure was in that sense an awakening to reality. The fact is that most people who come on to a wiki like ours and behave uncivilly are perfectly cognizant of what they are doing, and we admins are tasked with responding accordingly. The idea that incivility is a product of inexperience as an editor, and that we can train up vandals and trolls to be constructive contributors if only we are patient with them and keep appealing to their good sides, has proven itself time and again to be a lot of naïve piffle. Frankly, I think it's rather insulting to the majority of new editors who come to the site and contribute constructively, to categorize the good-faith newbie mistakes they might make in the beginning as even potentially equivalent to vandalism or trolling. Vandals and trolls, in the vast majority of cases, arrive at Wikivoyage with very different intentions than they do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Powers, the nature of the edit warring has been explained to you; you just aren't willing to understand the nature of a dynamic IP, it would seem. I don't feel like wasting time in further discussion about this because I can't explain it any better than it's already been explained. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I understand the dynamic IP. You identified the two IP addresses as the same person. I understand that. What I am asking for is to see where the edit war was at the time you made the edit comment that mentioned "edit warring". I do not see it.
As for naive piffle, the very issue we're discussing is how to distinguish vandals and trolls from good-faith newbies. It is dangerous and detrimental to jump to the conclusion of the former. It has nothing to do with reforming bad-faith editors and everything to do with avoiding false positives.
Powers (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious that our tolerance levels have shifted, and I agree with AndreCarrotflower. I've seen the amount of contributors and time wasted over a handful of non-contributors who tie us in knots. Also, I've seen the work that Ikan Kekek has done patrolling this site over many years, with patience, advice and good nature - that he's earned the respect of the community to have a few calls made on instinct (I don't know if this was one of those cases or not). I agree Powers and [[Ryan respectively, that we need a discussion of how we now make our guidelines hit people who aren't here to make a travel guide quickly, but balance that against the false positives. And that we need to let this instance go, and work on clear policy going forward on the appropriate pages. --Inas (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Basically agree with Inas here and support the really good work Ikan has done here over the years. It is fine to have a discussion around how we deal with scenarios such as this, but I really don't see why this particular example has to be labored so much. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
For clarification, here are all the edits in question, by various anonymous IPs as well as by myself and administrators. I fail to see why this is not an edit war.
#1 (scroll down to line 130 to see the change), #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20. Yes, the difference in wording is minor, but attempts to come to an agreement in a civil, rational manner failed.
There was a similar pattern with Central Coastal Oman, and with Dhofar. The edit style and tone of the anonymous IP on the talk page are I think suspiciously similar to those by a rather unpleasant character who has edited here in the past.
I do not understand why anyone here would tolerate this behavior, or question Ikan Kekek's judgement in handling this. –StellarD (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly document this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, StellarD, but I think this reinforces my point. Ikan called accused the user of edit warring in your link #6. Links #1-5, though, do not constitute an edit war (even if we assume the IPs are the same user) because edits #3 and #5 involved apparently good-faith attempts to adjust the wording to be acceptable, rather than simply re-instating the same wording as in #1. The edit war that ensued *after* Ikan's accusation was of course unacceptable, but it's not edit warring to attempt to alter prose to find consensus wording. Powers (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with Powers' interpretation of the events? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
All due respect, I'm trying and failing to follow his logic, let alone agree with him. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you explain where I've been unclear? The editor in question made three different edits to the article in question before being accused of edit warring. Making different edits is not edit warring. Powers (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Our old friend User:Turbo8000[edit]

Hello, Wikivoyagers. Not sure if the community is aware of this, or if you even need to be, but it seems that (the now globally-locked) Turbo8000 has been identified by Dutch Wikipedia as one of hundreds of sockpuppets used by the same vandal to cause trouble across various Wikis since 2012. I don't suppose this changes anything really, the guy is still indefblocked here, just that it may help everyone to know how extremely persistent this individual is in their disruptive and malicious behaviour, and that it's fairly likely they will resurface on Wikivoyage under a different name at some point in the future. Apologies if this information is either in the wrong place or not useful / appropriate. Thanks, good evening --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, TT. I'll be sure to keep an eye out, and I'm sure others will too. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
He has indeed been busy, and the reaction from each WV community has been the same. We were right to try and help him down the collaborative path, and even take every effort to do so. Wikis are not for everyone I guess. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Based on what we knew (or rather didn't know) at the time, I agree completely. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


Over the last couple of days different IPs have vandalized the Baghdad article. Should the article be protected? ϒpsilon (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Various commercial spambots[edit]

See block log. But they keep creating more; see user creation log. In all likelihood, all the users created on Sept. 21 are spambots, and User:Toplistproductcom clearly is because User:Toplistpro was, and I'd like to block it preemptively. Any ideas on how to filter them out before they have to all be blocked manually, with their edits rolled back? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Recent changes, I think anything containing "Top list", "top 10" and what have you, ought to be blacklisted for some time. And sooner rather than later. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This problem seems to have died down at the moment, I think, but let's keep on the lookout for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Dubai edits[edit]

Two accounts have today added listings in Dubai articles that look like normal touting, except for the fact that the listing "content" field is the typical "what a well-written blog" text that spambots generally add. It seems highly unlikely that any real world user would add that sort of content, but until it's clear what's going on then it's worthwhile keeping an eye on any edits to Dubai, or any other article where the listing content field appears to be spambot generated. See Special:Contributions/Radissonblu123 and Special:Contributions/Jadisinteriors for the accounts I've reverted so far. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

3 obviously dynamic IPs (User:2a02:ab88:33c2:bf00:7de3:3637:1e4e:8925, User:2a02:ab88:33c2:bf00:1584:f170:acb7:5bcb, User:2a02:ab88:33c2:bf00:b035:2bdd:851f:3f73) and User:-Sombrero19- in the Debrecen article[edit]

See revision history for the edit warring over an unexplained deletion of a listing. Also see the thread at Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Edit warring in the Debrecen article. I will block the one non-IP address, but we need a range block to deal with vandalistic edit warring by dynamic IPs. Please help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Since User:-Sombrero19- was previously blocked for 1 week for vandalism, I have blocked that account and the IP addresses for 2 weeks, but I fully expect another dynamic IP to continue the edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Because of the way IPv6 works, it is common for providers to issue a huge /64 - sized block to individual end users, which then use it to assign individual addresses to every machine on a LAN - maybe even using the lower 64 bits to hold the entire serial number of each PC's network card. Yes, a /64 is sixteen billion billion addresses; such is the absurdity of IPv6 and 128-bits of address. Most blocks therefore will be range blocks, so 2a02:ab88:33c2:bf00::0/64 is likely to be one end user's local area network and a valid range for a range block. K7L (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately we are blocking that whole (Hungarian) ISP in question. About as targeted as it can get.. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
After another instance of the vandalism, I semi-protected the article for a month. Hopefully this clears things up. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Strange, the filter should have caught that. Adjusted and hopefully catch next time. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The new vandalism was done by an ordinary IPv4 address, but with the same pattern of unexplained deletion. The more IP addresses the user reveals himself to have at his disposal, the more it becomes the simpler solution to protect the article rather than block the user, especially if the user is only targeting the one article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Another head of the Telstra?[edit]

have a look Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)