Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress

From Wikivoyage
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: See Incheon history and User talk: If this vandal continues their nonsense while I'm asleep, please block it. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And now User:Sadsacgfg. See Incheon history again. I'd consider any of this user's edits suspect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it with #cvn-wikivoyage connect, I can revert (with global-rollback) but I cannot block. Anyway apparently he stopped. — Revi 11:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
We're here to block User:-revi. --Saqib (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I know, but he stopped after the warning so no need to block! :) — Revi 16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
So, this vandal is at large again and gave him/herself an award.--ϒpsilon (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this user's global contributions, he or she has racked up a pretty extensive track record of crosswiki vandalism. Accordingly, I blocked User: for a year and User:Sadsacgfg indefinitely per Ikan's directive above as well as the "obvious vandal" clause of Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! ϒpsilon (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI, looks like he moved to Korean Wikivoyage test project on incubator. (sulutil:Sadsacgfg) And his patterns on incubator suggests me of LTA(LongTerm Abuse) who was sleeping. So if you encounter this type of vandal, please let me know and I'll check out. — Revi 16:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

New as of 2/17/2015[edit]

User:Metalmanx has been blocked indefinitely, but please watch every other newly registered user closely. I suspect at least all those ending in "x" of being likely to vandalize numerous articles until blocked, just as this vandal did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Airman1 has also been blocked indefinitely. Watch all newly-registered users, please. I've gotta go. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Bubbleman1 as well, although I'm sure it has been noticed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rocky in Brockton[edit]

An IP-user with different IP numbers starting with 172... thinks our guide to Brockton and its talk page absolutely must include some messy babble about the movie Rocky and boxing. The user has created Talk:Brockton with the same stuff three times, as Special:Log/delete shows. Saqib protected the talk page, and what does the user? They started having fun with the article itself. This looks like a quite persistent vandal, so I'm starting a little thread here to make everyone aware of that we have such an unfortunate user on board right now. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

All IP's have been blocked for a day. --Saqib (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Page has been semiprotected for one week (autoconfirmed users only). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
After more random vandalism, I created a filter temporarily that will hopefully dissuade them. I can delete the filter after a while. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That didn't take long --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The same thing again, two and a half months later!. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The individual is completely out of control. Here is the IP they're editing from. Ps. Andrew, I think the filter should be improved ASAP (or reinstated if you've removed it). ϒpsilon (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, the filter was pretty good until now (blocking 18 times last month). I'm currently traveling through a wet Auckland, but will change the filter as soon as I get a chance today. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


See user contributions. It looks like the filter that covers Australia needs to be tweaked again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked for 1 month, but the filter still needs editing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

More CNN Deltalina vandalism[edit]

It looks like the CNN Deltalina vandal is back at the Tourist Office. When I noticed the vandalism, I took a look at the abuse filter we set up and sure enough, as I had predicted he would, as soon as the vandal realized he tripped the filter he modified the wording of his comment to evade it. I widened the dragnet quite a bit, but given his pattern of behavior it seems to me there's a good chance we're dealing with an experienced user of wikis who knows how abuse filters work, in which case I think we might need to explore an IP rangeblock. Let's keep an eye open for further incidents. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Side note: let's please avoid using unnecessary profanity in edit summaries. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at the 'Rocky' filter which was rather successful last week in preventing that person's vandalism (multiple attempts from multiple IPs). Would not just blocking the term 'deltina' work in this case? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I changed the edit filter. You might want to have a look at what it blocks now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Testing your changes, it seems today's edits by the vandal would have been caught. Lets hope no more changes are needed for next time :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User: or "Rhodesia"[edit]

Would somebody kindly lock down the Zimbabwe article for a while and/or block this vandal? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Nothing needs to be done at the moment, but I would like you to take note of this, please. This user is developing a pattern of harassing admins s/he has for no good reason decided to be angry at, for making completely normal edits according to Wikivoyage:Policies and the guidelines of good and consistent editing, as those of you who have kept track of their user talk page and contributions are aware. See also the history of my user talk page, and even more seriously, this edit to my user page. So I'm just noting this for the record, in case further action becomes necessary. I plan on continuing to revert non-constructive edits to my user talk page from this individual for the time being and I am not yet suggesting any blocks, though when I examine the record, it appears that there is already a sound basis for a short one, if anyone chose to impose it. I'll also note that this user publicly "resigned", yet has continued to post, including these non-constructive posts to my user talk page, to which I have made no reply except "Happy trails". I think we all recognize the personality we're dealing with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any recent vandalism from this user (the one instance you linked is from February). This is a user with clear article ownership issues, and a failure to understand that changes to his/her edits are not to be taken personally, but that is not the same thing as vandalism. Furthermore, I think the warnings that were just posted on his/her talk page are over-the-top and needlessly antagonistic. Powers (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that this user is vandalizing my user talk page by posting sniping comments that I am not replying to and see no reason to keep on that page, and there was a previous instance of vandalizing my user page. I will say nothing about the messages that were posted on his user talk page except that I have not asked anyone to post such messages, and they have drawn their own conclusions, which not too surprisingly, are different from yours. I recall that you've always (or nearly always?) wanted to give problematic users more chances than most other admins, so this disagreement would be true to form. And I think it's OK that you disagree about them. But either way, I think it's important to document this history, and even if most of it is not vandalistic, I don't know where else would be a better place than here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
If we do have room for uncivil people here on Wikivoyage, then by all means, please go ahead and remove the warning message that I placed on User:DAZ14LPA user talk page. --Saqib (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Saqib - the overarching issue here is one of civility, not vandalism. Perhaps this issue would be better handled at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, but to deny that there is a serious problem or minimize it to a relatively innocuous "article ownership issue", as Powers does above, is not IMO the right approach. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the responses to this user have served to exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it. Users like this need guidance, not to simply be told 'this is the way it is; figure out how to edit properly and maybe we'll tolerate you'. I got good results with a couple of carefully worded explanations. Powers (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And at any rate, there is certainly not an ongoing problem with vandalism here. Incivility, yes, but they are not the same thing. Powers (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There's certainly a learning curve for newbies that old-timers like us should be patient about, but we should not have to patiently explain to them why they shouldn't call other users idiots. Nowhere else in life is that kind of conduct acceptable, so why should we assume good faith when they bring it here? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Powers, it was precisely because of my attempts to give him guidance that he got increasingly hostile toward me. You can review the record. He never had to "figure out how to edit"; I gave him lots of guidance, with links to policy pages, on what to do and what not to do. He's being supplicatory now, which is unnecessary. I hope he can simply be cooperative, like almost everyone else who posts here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Having looked at the edits on Ikan's talk page, I would say this user falls under the same category as 118NZ . Obviously taking everything very personally, with the latest comment getting uncomfortably close to a real world threat. Many of us have tried to positively engage and it doesn't seem to be helping in the slightest.
We can keep trying to provide guidance, but we also need to maintain civility as AndreCarrotflower says. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, but what latest comment? I've never felt any threat from him. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't explicit. "Thanks a bunch for helping me set the record straight, IK. PS, I owe you." reads rather creepy to me. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was strange, but I didn't feel threatened. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't trying to sound creepy by that, and I was just frustrated. I didn't take the guidance, let alone did I mean to post those inexcusably rude comments, and that's all there is to it. I messed up. DAZ14LPA (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You need to bear in mind a number of things:
  1. although we pay assiduous lip service to the idea that anyone can edit to make a better travel guide, the main motivation for many of the admins here is to boost their egos and sense of self worth - just imagine you're speaking to a police officer who's stoppped you for some minor offence and adopt the demeanour and language that may save your driving licence.
  2. they can't hear your tone of voice. Some of the American admins are particularly prone to misunderstand and take offence quickly and permanently. Remember they live in a country that has to tolerate free speech, however hateful and stupid it can be and, perhaps because of that daily frustration, like their social venues to be less challenging.
  3. once you get on their bad side, there is no court of appeal or tricky dicky lawyer that can restore your licence. 23:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for giving those tips. DAZ14LPA (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Diogo Bispo[edit]

So far this individual has only blanked the main page once. But have a look at their cross-wiki career! Portuguese Wikipedia already indef blocked him as a vandalism only account. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Indefbanned per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban, exception #2. Good looking out, Ypsi. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Japan is disrupting your country etc. and the same in Dutch[edit]

Here is an IP used for vandalism who got blocked earlier today. Now they are using two other IPs to continue pumping out the same (admittedly slightly hilarious) rant on all articles they can get their hands on. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks, ϒpsilon. Danapit (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you too, and hopefully people keep their eyes open because this looks like a persistent vandal. Also, the piece of text he keeps posting qualifies for an entry here: Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense#Is your country a hairy caterpillar? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Being honest, the more I think about Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense the more I come to the conclusion that it's a bad idea to have a page like that on our site. I'll cop to finding some of the things on that page funny, but IMO Wikivoyage should be in the practice of denying recognition to vandals rather than setting up shrines to them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Andre. Vandals are looking for attention, and we should therefore endeavor to make Wikivoyage a boring place to vandalize. The "bad jokes" page works nicely for collecting amusing edit summaries or the occasional one-time drive-by prank ("My hovercraft is full of eels" in the Norwegian phrasebook still makes me laugh), but I think we need to make it very clear that the page should never be used to reward vandals with the attention that they are looking for. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Increased vandalism and spam are some of the few downsides of increasing reader numbers. However, there are so many obscure corners to this Wiki that most users in this category will never notice their "shrine" page.
Like terrorism and the resultant laws that reduce our freedoms, it would be sad to concede that these sad and unproductive individuals have effectively won by permanently changing our content.
I am a little bit surprised that on FOUR (,, occasions recently I was the one to notice this machine translation. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a rota of recent changes patrollers to spot this sort of stuff earlier? 23:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think BJAODN is such an essential and indispensable page to our site that we couldn't bear to let it go. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed - but since we keep the readership sapping, quirky article sub-section titles only out of a mis-focussed sense of historical cussedness, such an action would seem akin to re-arranging the deckchairs on the titanic.
What do you think of having a rota of recent changes patrollers ? 00:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think comparing Wikivoyage to the Titanic is an invalid analogy that, frankly, calls your motives here into question. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
One reason among many for calling 175's motives into question. Powers (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
BJAODN should be reserved for the unusual few items that are actually funny, not merely a catalogue of routine (and unfunny) vandalism. I see no reason to abandon the BJAODN page, but links to ordinary vandalism like this might be worth removing? K7L (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
What is a "rota"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Short for 'rotation'. Powers (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we do have an informal rotation of patrollers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


Has been vandalizing all over Spain and Switzerland. No useful or good faith contributions whatsoever. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Blocked now. This seems to be a repeat offender using dynamic IPs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad that's taken care of for now. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Template:IPvandal Persistent vandalism. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the third day in a row this dimwit is vandalizing the Jenkintown article. If you look at the history, he likes "Star Warring" on user pages too of those mean people who dare to revert him. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for a day. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
For the record, this/these person/s have engaged in cross-wiki vandalism for at least a couple of days per and User:Voyager_Probe. The IPs (they're using another one now) seem to belong to some school. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Almost a week of random vandalism, and only today Ryan deleted two vandalism-only accounts by this user. Maybe it's time for an abuse filter? I think Andrew (ssi2) is familiar with those? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, I would like to make sure our two most active admins Ikan and the other Andrew (who just blocked the latest of his creations) are aware of this super persistent vandal. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, ϒpsilon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we should delete vandalistic user pages such as User:Empirescholaroflogic, too. Do you all agree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry for chiming in late. I was going to suggest rangeblocking any IP addresses belonging to the school, but as today is Saturday and we're still dealing with vandalism, I doubt that alone would solve the problem as clearly not all the edits are coming from the school. An abuse filter may be a good idea, but it's unlikely to be foolproof, especially if the user knows how to sidestep them: there are probably dozens of terms from the Star Trek universe that would need to be added to the filter. Barring any better ideas, I suggest a combination of that and good old-fashioned Recent Edits patrolling. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We had something similar for the 'Rocky vandal. Should I go ahead and create? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think so, because they probably will be back tomorrow or even today. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I created Special:AbuseFilter/26. Obviously I can't publicly state what it is looking for, but any other Admin can go and review. It will just tag for the moment, but can be changed to a 'block' if needed. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)