Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Categories vandalized

I can't locate the templates they have been vandalized and need a prompt repair please. [1].--Sandahl (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done already, was template vandalism. --Martin H. (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Albis - Planetenweg*

Same problem and same IP user (84.75.160.122, seems to be a static adress) as in this incident. Please semi-protect following files indefinitely:

to protect them from being reverted to senseless versions (compare my statements at Administrators' noticeboard as of 7. Okt. 2010, 22:07 – 23:12.

Please consider additionally to block the IP user for a while because of violating COM:AGF as well as using personal attacks against me in the concerning edit summaries and conducting edit wars. Regards, Carbenium (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and @Carbenium, please "calm down": are those or other uploads done by you? No, they are not, and i do not think that the uploader(s) of those images will support your requests.
Before claiming here (00:31 8 October 2010) "vandalism", relax, ask yourselves not to do really the same by starting "counter-topics/attacks", and claiming edits as "personal attacks" ...
Please remember, (nearly) two days before, at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems referring to User:Carbenium on 18:35, 6 October 2010 was started by me to avoid a possibly Edit-war – i did not claim so, let's 'speak' that topic and your and my statements for itselves ...
In between, User:Carbenium claimed Commons:Requests for rights on 11:13, 7 October 2010 "... for fighting vandalism more easily, hmmm.
Dear Admins, please consider to close one (18:35 6 October) topic one (11:13 7 October) after another (00:31 8 October), and please do not 'support' (imho) "counter-attacks" on that level, i.e. by starting topics again and again referring to the same matter (sorry about my bad and maybe 'misleading' English, i'm not fluent).
And, dear Admins, let's "speak" User:Carbenium's recent edits and above mentioned requests claiming "fighting vandalism" in 'favour' of Wikimedia commons 'against' my edits as IP.
Finally, thank you for considerung that statement and best regards, 84.75.160.122 04:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I wish, you had considered my statements concerning the "other versions"...
And either are you the uploader of the images and it's a bit self-opinionated of you to read the uploader's mind – or are you user:Roland_zh, hiding behind an IP to protect you main account out of possible vandalism reports? (Just a question, no PA). Apart from that you should remember: It's a wiki, pages don't belong to anyone personal (even not to the uploader) once they are uploades but to everyone in the community.
You are claiming you were interested in deescalation, so you have to put up with some questions:
  • Why did you revert me again and misscalled me again as an "possible vandal" without waiting for the outcome of the discussion, only based on a single, not representative opinion of another user?
  • Why didn't you talk to me on my discussion board but through "user-problems" (where I possibly never had found the incrimination as i wasn't noticed about them and besides I'm pushed in a defensive position)? You seem to be familiar enough with the system to know all those possibilities.
  • And why did you behave destructively in the first and second place by reverting, attaching blame on me on the Administrator's noticeboard and keeping fighting with me instead of construtively create a gallery on your own?
Another question – of course – is: Which part of "VERY SIMILAR" and "DERIVED" is not understandable? And once again: What's wrong with treating the "other versions"-section as it is meant (I think, there are reasons, why the template-description say exactly those words) and creating ONE real galery-page instead of pasting the same 20-pictures-gallery into 20 filedescriptions?
I'm not counter-attacking, please don't twist the truth – you began reverting and calling me a names (in those summaries).
I apreciate the most of your other edits (I've taken a look on many of them) and I ask you to respect my edits in the same way – in particular as I have brought good arguments why a file description page should not be abused as a gallery (and you actually didn't give any hint, why it should be).
So, why should I "calm down"? I'm not even "up", but I also want to protect myself from being reverted in valid edits and being called a "possible vandal" in edit summaries. You studied my edit list and have seen, how many of my edits are the recent edits of the particular files, thus in conclusion nearly all of my edits were appreciated by the community. Calling me a possible vandal in at least 10 edit coments consider I thus as reputation-damaging and insulting – possible vandalism without any further comment is only a personal opinion (a very offending one, moreover), not a real reason for an edit – particularly in those like them we're talking about, you should give real reasons.
BTW: I didn't request the rollbacker right just because of you – it's a little overconfident to think so... --Carbenium (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Carbenium, please stop labeling valid edits you disagree with based on a very limited view of a certain template's usage as "vandalism". No, you are not fighting vandalism, you are simply edit-warring to get your way. To any admins looking to do something here: I suggest blocks, rather than protection. Rocket000 (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

MY valid edit was first and according to your statement it's up to the IP to respect it and not to call it possible vandalism. And I didn't say anything about vandalism in the first place. Instead I delivered a good reason as edit-comment. I actually don't edit-war, the IP does. I'm talking here and I wasn't the one who reverted good edits before taking the discussion to an end. I only have re-reverted one time – did you ever her about the 3R-rule according to which one can consider a row of reverts as edit war with the third revert? Please start really listening to and considering my arguments instead of dismissing them instantly, and stop defending with blind anger the poor suppressed IP. As a sysop here you should take a more neutral viewpoint. Taking excessive party for one side without having real arguments in discussions is in my opinion no good practice. For any other point see my answer to the IP above. --Carbenium (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I said nothing in defense of the IP nor did I say anything in "blind anger", actually it was pretty void of any emotion. I would probably just have blocked you if I felt that way. Rocket000 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It actually did seem so to me because you mentioned the IP's edit as valid but not mine (which was earlier). But don't care anymore, I consider this case as closed. Greets, Carbenium (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Concerning this related case: Though I'm not a native english speaker I know, that there are up to 15 different meanings for a single english word; but I didn't know, that the term other versions means anything and "links to files with very similar content or derived files;" reads as dump here whatever you want (concerning the "stop imposing their extremely narrow interpretation" statement in that case). But since there now exists a real gallery, I'll soon delete the pseudo-galleries within the pictures anyway. --Carbenium (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Guillaume Seignac painting inappropriate comment

This page [[2]] has an inappropriate comment that has nothing to do with the painting or artist. Please remove comment. Thank You Sandra

There is no inappropriate comment. The section #filehistory you link is an automatically generated version history from that file upload log. --Martin H. (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
She was seeing some remnant of the vandalism yesterday evening. Apparently some template transclusion didn't get purged properly, or she saw a cached version of the page. I purged the page manually now. Lupo 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I not see any related changes + is it even possible to vandalize #filehistory sections? However, I think with your purge the problem is resolved anyway, if there was a problem. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

202.45.119.16

This user has been warned before. Latest set of contributions see here. Wouter (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks by administrator Túrelio. --Dferg (talk · meta) 09:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting updates

Ssire keeps reverting updates to Coats of Arms of France. File:Blason fr Abbaye de Saint-Léonard.svg, for example. I update the arms to be more consistent with the most-used designs (File:Arms of the Kingdom of France (Ancien).svg). Adelbrecht (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

French-speaking admin needed. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

'fr:Il faudra mettre les deux versions dans deux fichiers différents et faire des references à Autres versions. --Havang(nl) (talk) en:'' One has to put the two versions in two different files and make links under Other versions. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC) --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See the ongoing discussion here, where I centralised it. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You can revert the coat of arms of the Abaye de Saint-Léonard. this is the original and this is the new version. Adelbrecht (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, i also did some version cleaning. Thanks for your cooperation. You now have better guidelines for the future, I hope. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Blackpeoplearemonkeys.jpg

Racist file name, being used to vandalize en.wiki. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC) (admin, en. wiki)

✓ Gone assuming I got the correct one. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Irfaankhanabadosh

Deleted the images and warned the user. They should be blocked next I guess. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've already warned the user on October 23 and he continued. Please recheck. Mspraveen (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Kind attention may please be drawn to the above user's recent upload on Oct 31 that was deleted due to another copyvio. Can something be done? Mspraveen (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
User: Malqrrishh (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Sockpuppetry suspected. There seems to be a trend in the uploads. Mspraveen (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - both blocked, the puppet indef and the original account for a week. Maybe they will get the message now. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

SchoolcraftT is back

Permabanned user SchoolcraftT (talk · contribs) is back and socking as DaleSr3 (talk · contribs) and Dalejr8 (talk · contribs). The two Dale Earnhardt-themed accounts here edited the same image and are obviously the same person. Checkuser over at en.wiki showed SchoolcraftT and DaleSr3 to be the same user [3]. The edits so far are focused on a Mountain Parkway Byway-related photo [4]. Just like SchoolcraftT's edit's, the image itself contains no data about when/how it was created.

Please block these socks. Bitmapped (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Francabpirata§

please check Special:Contributions/Francabpirata uploads, he / she uploads whole time copyvuio album covers--Motopark (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Album covers deleted & user warned blocked by ZooFari. Their other uploads could probably use some checking as well. Jafeluv (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted some copyvios. Left some images tagged with "no permission"/no clear ones. --Dferg (talk · meta) 19:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Elvisprsley77

User Special:Contributions/Elvisprsley77 adds whole time copyvios--Motopark (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Masur. Thanks, --Dferg (talk · meta) 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Доктор

Hi! Can somebody ban this one for sexual harassment? (It's all in Russian, but believe me - quite bad).Shakko (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Trycatch. --Túrelio (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
He again user:Доктор-2, and again he is interesting only in my sexual life. Does he have the same ip for block for ip?Shakko (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Horsecow.jpg

Used to vandalize en.wiki. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, by Mattbuck. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

CovertAffairs22

CovertAffairs22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Enough from his copyvios. Tbhotch (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with, by Dcoetzee. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

image changed

Please check http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Plaza_Mayor.jpg The original file, which is linked to several articles, has been changed by a new image which doesnt correspond to the place discribed. Any way to return the original picture? Thanks.

I have renamed the file to a less generic File:Plaza Mayor de Bujalance.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File:I see a chicken.jpg

Used by sockpuppet to vandalize en.wiki. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

✓ Gone blocked etc :) (no other accounts obvious) --Herby talk thyme 22:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Entryhelp

Please block this vandalism account ASAP and delete all content. As this seems to be a Mohammad-related vandalism I suggest to semi-block the affected images. A checkuser for this vandal may be needed to find possible other accounts. --Denniss (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thx for fixing this one and the other incarnation of this user. A checkuser may really be needed considering a user of the same name is blocked at en wiki with Checkuserblock. --Denniss (talk)
He's back as User:Mehrunes Dagon. --Denniss (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I infinite blocked User:Entryhelp, User:Mehrunes Dagon and User:Agent_Smith_(The_Matrix) all likely one and the same, for excessive upload vandalism. All three have had their talk page and email privs revoked as well. Affected images (all islam and mohammed related) are autoconfirmed edit/move and upload protected sysop. All infinite as well. I don't usually do this kind of stuff, so if someone wants to double check me, please do. TheDJ (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
And User:Neifion TheDJ (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This user was also blocked via checkuser at en wiki. Maybe someone could ask the blocking admin at en wiki for more known usernames to have them blocked here. See also [5] [6][7][8] for user information. Is thee something like a wiki-wide block available ? --Denniss (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
CU has been run on these (& by more than one cu!). No current puppets and the source IP is blocked. Accounts can be globally locked on Meta by stewards and most of these have been. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/En.limousin

see Special:Contributions/En.limousin edits, removes my speedy deletion tag.--Motopark (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Amir.png

Used to vandalize en.wiki. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 07:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:T0118163

This user seems to be unable to understand English, could some Chinese speaking admin help? Thanks in advance! axpdeHello! 23:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this user has commented on his uploading actions at Commons:Village_pump/zh, claiming not to know why it is seen as "disruptive". A Chinese admin has responded accordingly, saying that the new icons take up space and causes the server to slow down. NoNews! 11:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This user still continues to upload BSicons just as he likes, not caring about correct categories, descriptions (he seems to be unable to communicate in english) and all regulations conc. those files. Furthermore he insults users in Chinese language on their user talk pages. I'm not willing nor do I have the time to clean up after him, thus I blocked him for two weeks. axpdeHello! 19:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Did you notice he also changed the design of a couple of xxxGRENZE icons ? - Erik Baas (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted all icons in use and prepared the light railway GRENZE icons to match the heavy rail GRENZE icons. I already moved utGRENZE to uetGRENZE (with redirect) and merged ueGRENZE into uexGRENZE to provide full history. The useage of all (now) obsolete redirects should be replaced, after that light railway international border icons may get uploaded! axpdeHello! 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: This user tries to fill all "empty spaces" and this is appreciated, but re-uploads with just removed comments or undiscussed layout changes are counterproductive. axpdeHello! 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User removes OTRS.request

See edits Special:Contributions/Karman_mat, user removed OTRS-request again and again--Motopark (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Blocked --Herby talk thyme 09:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Attention requested to Commons:Deletion Requests

I am leaving this here to draw attention to Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Sexual content, - I have marked the page for a Speedy Close, but would like to ask admins to deal with the nominator, since the nomination is in my opinion, vandalism. Thanks - BarkingFish (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorted I think - it just needed reverting. I have warned the user though there may be no real point. Less vandal and more confused maybe...:) --Herby talk thyme 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Azizfaisalaziz

User:70.28.12.249

109.200.6.10

ResolvedProtected
created by Túrelio. –Krinkletalk 17:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Bmxfan86

Special:Contributions/Bmxfan86 vandalizing discussions, uploads of pornhographic sketches --Felix Talk! 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Danke. Seine Bildchen habe ich gelöscht. Kommen weitere copyvios von ihm, wird er gesperrt. --High Contrast (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ravage101

Thanks - sorted. Some protection and CU list informed as this is a cross wiki idiot. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I added admin-only protection to {{Institution}} and registered used to Bus-Information. It seems like other templates are already protected. --Jarekt (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Toilet

 Info The point is that we have this deletion request the 2nd time, so User:Toilet was obviously ignoring the outcome of that discussion. Impo, the user is not really interested in the encyclopaedia, but rather uses the file space for uploading private pictures. More deletion requests are pending. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
PS: According to that tool, the user is either not using the same user name on other wikis or is just uploading pictures here on commons. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shijaspare

 Info Apart from that contrib, this user is inactive. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

201.194.17.14

Resolved

Please look the contributions made by this different users. The style seems to be the same of reported anons:

  1. Segunda CR - similar to anon's contribs (See this and confront). Note this strange FB link instead of file
  2. Huracandelos80s - only one contrib in august but the style seems to be similar.
  3. FOOTBALL 80S - some contribs here in september. Very similar style.
  4. CONAFA 80S - some contribs in november. Note the "caps lock"
  5. Futbolhistoria 8 - an upload in october, same style. He created the user page of BARBAREÑOS
  6. Futbolhistoria 7 - only a (correct) contrib in october. His nick is too similar to Footballhistoria 8 and the upload reguards a Costarican club.
  7. BARBAREÑOS - No contribs. His user page has been edited by Futbolhistoria 8. The text reguards the history of one of this football clubs.
  8. Futbolero2000 - 2 uploads in july. Same style of others (see for exemple the categorization).
  9. Huracandelos80s - A single upload in august. Same style, same field.
  10. Futbolhistoria 10 - Same style, caps lock, enormous text.
  11. Futbolhistoria 11 - No contribs. But seeing this noce it seems that the user created (october) the same "pseudo" file created by Seugnda CR few hours ago.
  12. Futbolhistoria 12 - Idem
  13. Futbolhistoria 13 - Idem
  14. Futbolhistoria 14 - No contribs
  15. Futbolhistoria 15 - A copyviol in november.
  16. Futbolhistoria 16 - Same style, 2 uploads...
  17. Futbolhistoria 9 - No contribs
  18. Futbolhistoria 6 - No contribs
  19. Futbolhistoria 5 - No contribs
  20. Futbolhistoria 4 - No contribs
  21. Futbolhistoria 3 - No contribs
  22. Futbolhistoria 2 - No contribs
  23. Futbolhistoria - No contribs

Other possible sockpuppets: Note the caps lock and the same usage of "Category:FUTBOL".

  1. Chivas Chlaoc JC - Please note also the not existant Template:CHIVAS CHALCO JC linked as source. Principally, this (as others) file is tagged with PD-SELF. But this file includes the logo of Chivas Guadalajara, a non-free emblem as you can see here.

Big stack of puppet accounts to me and blockable as such. My only possible explanation would be a group of football fans who have the imagination to come up with differing names... There are a dozen or so accounts on one IP. --Herby talk thyme 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Segunda CR

Resolved

Blocked and copyvios deleted. Thanks, --Dferg (talk · meta) 14:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) . So, the pictures were copyvios? Wow... --Dэя-Бøяg 03:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Theronfwhite

✓ Done, blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

MorgansaysRAWRxx

User:MorgansaysRAWRxx is evidently a cross-wiki vandalism-only account, having uploaded a rather unpleasant image here and adding it to an article on en.Wikipedia (where I just blocked them). A quick block would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Yep :) --Herby talk thyme 00:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

76.28.188.45

✓ Done - One week block given. Thanks for reporting. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 23:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected user page

Resolved

A couple of admins who I have had disputes with in the past have insisted on hijacking my user page. I let some months pass hoping things would quiet down before trying to take my user page back, but they are stalking my page and won't let me make any changes to it. I retired an old account and started a new, the old was Xanderliptak and the new is my complete proper name Alexander Liptak. hey argue this is sockpuppettry, though they never supplied a diff or any proof of this and the names being so close no one would think them two different people. They basically argued better safe than sorry, and just took over my page anyways.

They cite a previous RfC about taking over my user page, but the conversation hardly went the say of blocking it. Bidgee just came along and decided to end the conversation and block me form editing it. I would have to beg and plead to change anything on my userpage, which would need their approval and require them to take the time to change anything. This is ridiculous. Either they should supply a diff where sockpuppetry is shown, or let me have my user page back. They don't let others decide what is on their user pages, then they should allow me to decide what is on mine.

The RfC conversation about blocking my user page:

  • I request an immediate block for edit warring. I will not apply it since I am involved. This user has reverted 3 different editors linking his accounts 7 times in the last couple of days [9]. One of those was mine, and I stand by the need to link alternate accounts, especially when they are both used to edit the same files. As noted above, this user appears to have other difficulties listening to other editors, and may warrant other sanctions, but my request is simply related to the need to stop edit warring. --99of9 (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have all the context here but noting a linkage on talk (which gets archive) is insufficient. Why is this user trying to remove the linkage? I think we need a clear explanation of that, which we have not gotten yet. Absent that, the user should not be edit warring to remove it. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not just let him clear his user page? We got the information here already, better yet more than just a link. ZooFari 04:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This page gets archived... those coming along later won't know. Multiple accounts participating in the same area controlled by the same user need to be crosslinked, or they are in violation of the socking policy here and subject to blocking. That's not really a debatable point. There are certain very limited exceptions which need to be clearly justified. I see no such yet. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I see what's going on. Not really interested in it, maybe later. ZooFari 04:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Lar's comment brings up an interesting question: do we have a sockpuppet policy here on Commons? The closest thing I could find is the sentence "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked." on COM:BP, which doesn't really apply in this case. I suppose it could be considered an "unwritten policy", but one really should try to exercise a certain amount of flexibility in enforcing those. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • His stated reasons for removing the link are that he prefers to leave his user page blank, and that he doesn't want users from Wikipedia to be able to "follow" him. --99of9 (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If they feel that editors are abusively "stalking" them, they have means to raise the issue but it doesn't mean you can create another account and hide. Bidgee (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks Bidgee. --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The complaining editor and blocking editor clearly agree, however I and the two other commenting editors did not. One seemingly felt this was a waste of time and the other felt that there wasn't any proof of sockpuppetry so there was nothing to be done. All I want is my user page back.

--Alexander Liptak (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lar's comment of 04:15, 25 October 2010 is clear, and its substance unchallenged, in my reading of the discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur. The OP is under the mistaken impression that he "owns" his user page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As the OP did not notify Bidgee of this discussion, I have done so, in the same thread in which the OP clearly indicates the "I didn't hear that" behavior that has caused him so much trouble here and at wikipedia.[10] He continues to claim ownership of his user page, despite being told many times that he doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The basic principle is that if one person uses two accounts to edit the same set of pages with both, then those accounts are by that fact and from that time forward inextricably intertwined -- and the person owes the rest of us an explicit acknowledgement of their common identity. If you want keep two Commons accounts separate, then the only way is to edit different pages with each account. By the way, none of this has much to do with "vandalism"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, Xanderliptak's account has a number of uploads and if someone lists one or more for deletion then they are not to know that it is in fact Alexander Liptak. Both accounts have been used (none of them are retired [which mean no longer used]) and the fact is they don't own any page (user or talk page), as stated by Baseball Bugs. Bidgee (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose indefinite protection of both user pages. If Alexander Liptak agrees not to delete the cross-links, he could request unprotection. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of indefinitely locking the user pages and of indefinitely blocking the supposedly "retired" account. That should take of the edit-warring and then he can focus on the work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What a big freaking mess. I don't know what the hell people were doing, but this is what I did: User:Xanderliptak and User talk:Xanderliptak now contain {{Retired}}, I consider it a disruptive edit if someone changes this with a link to User:Alexander Liptak. The User:Xanderliptak account is blocked to prevent anymore edits. I blanked User:Alexander Liptak, I consider it a disruptive edit if someone changes this with a link to User:Xanderliptak. I unblocked the user. I don't know what kind of enwp issues were brought over here, but it just stopped. Multichill (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The issues were primarily at commons, and they bled over into wikipedia. The issues all had to do with Xander wanting to own his images and his user pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Liptak significantly antagonized a number of people here on Commons by his behavior on Commons in the autumn, without reference to en.wikipedia (I've never had any interaction with him on en.wikipedia at all, for example) -- and the fact that his very first action on returning from a two-month vacation was to remove the necessary cross-references between his two accounts (see my message of "04:51, 7 January 2011" above) very strongly suggested that he intended to resume his problematic behavior exactly where he left off before -- and the whining ranting and wildly accusatory tirades he left directly above (and on my user talk page) did not gain him any additional sympathy. I don't care very much whether he's blocked or unblocked (and never have cared all that much), but he will have to make major changes in his behavior, or he will very quickly involve himself in controversies just like his past controversies here... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm expecting Xander's next complaint to be about his "retired" page having been indef protected and his "retired" account having been indef blocked. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

198.20.32.1

Resolved
Oh, you're right. Somehow I thought September was also problematic, but I was in the enwiki page (which shows a block, duh). Sorry. Hekerui (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be resolved :-) Multichill (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Linaperes

The images may not be to your taste but Commons is not censored and they are (probably) within scope. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Image vandalism

Can someone delete the version of an unrelated photo someone uploaded over another one? See [11]. I've reverted but version 2 in the history needs to be cleared. Burpelson AFB (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done and I've dropped a note on the user5 page too. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dengzhigen

File:Logo for user Access denied.png

Philipparham

Note: After the temporary block on enwiki the user explained to the admin that the material (it is not specified if this includes the files) from that site was added by him. If he send a mail to proof, it will be a good thing to have a same kind of confirmation reguarding the coat of arms uploaded here. --Dэя-Бøяg 09:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Note-2: The user sent a mail to enwiki to confirm his ownership of the material: look here. Reading the letter it is not specified if the coat of arms uploaded here are free or not. Ex.: they could have received a permission by the owner to be used only on that website or not. I'll ask to him if he could send a similar mail to proof also a free license for the coat of arms. --Dэя-Бøяg 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahmidazuwad

No big surprise with such a non-sensical filename. Anyway, I've warned the overwriter and renamed the file. --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral removal of categories

User:Fry1989 is trying to impose his point of view, removing categories and inserting the "superseded tag" in the File:Flag President of Brazil.svg.

Firstly, based on some pictures, he tried to upload a new version, without agreeing with other users (also in File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg). Administrator Zscout has disabled this function, and after abandoned the discussion, the user started to alter the description of the file.

User Fry has a long historic of disruptive behaviour. He is also changing the file in some articles at WP:EN; again, trying to impose his point of view.

No matter who's right, it cannot be allowed the removal of categories and the misuse of a tag just to validate another file. Tonyjeff (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Adition: the user is removing the warning tags from "his" discussion page, what is considered another disruptive attitude. Tonyjeff (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Users may remove warnings from their talk page. Please see COM:TALK. Reverting people on their own talk page is usually unhelpful.[12] You may be assured that s/he saw your message. Please give Zscout370 an opportunity to review this matter; see

User_talk:Zscout370#Presidential_flag_.28again.29. [13] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

70.28.12.249

Agreed - deleted the ones from today but it should be a block next for sure (& I imagine it is the IP of the user with similar interests). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

217.75.87.6

The above IP Address is filling Deletion requests with entries for a single image. --Kwekubo (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Now blocked by Odder in exactly the way I was about to :) --Herby talk thyme 17:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
User contributions cleaned by myself and Herby, thanks for the help :) odder (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

84.62.200.57

The above IP Address is nominating dozends of pictures taken in the United Arab Emirates for deletion with the copied argument that there is no FoP in the UAE. Is he/she in the right or is this a disruption of commons? --Gereon K. (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't check his edits, but - regretably - there is no usable FOP-provision in UAE-copyright law. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

VOA

Roozie12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  appears to be a VOA. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

NM, seems that PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) got him. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

129.143.71.36

ResolvedSoft-blocked for one month.

129.143.71.36 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues with vandalism although not very frequent. The last "contributions" are from 24 and 25 January. Wouter (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IP belongs to a university network in Germany. Immediately after next act of vandalism, it should be blocked and an abuse complaint should be sent, see User talk:129.143.71.36. --Túrelio (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Said IP has a long block on de.wikipedia and de.wikibooks. From the edits there it's quite clear this is a school IP (university network, subcontracted for local schools). Last block on deWP was 1 year, expiring Sept. 15 ... wikibooks gave --Guandalug 10:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Good to know. --Túrelio (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: I report his last vandalism, two days ago. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done - Soft-blocked for one month. --Dferg (talk · meta) 15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ser Dogg

Long-term block; might be changed to perm. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Vaibhav3117

Resolved

Vandal damaging the talk page

Diif of damage and abuse language...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All edits reverted and blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

LkaJHKLS

Warned. Jafeluv (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the language

Please have a look at the language of this IP Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Burj_Dubai_001.jpg --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to avoid a confrontation

Someone, possibly Tina Majkowski herself (User:Portlandia, with no other edits, plus an IP address that might or might not be the same person), has been messing with (adding {{Speedy}}, changing or removing name) the descriptions of 3 photos of Majkowski and two others that she appears in File:Pop Conference 2010 - Bent panel 01.jpg‎, File:Pop Conference 2010 - Bent panel 02.jpg‎, File:Tina Majkowski 01.jpg‎, File:Tina Majkowski 02.jpg‎, File:Tina Majkowski 03.jpg‎. I have now reverted twice, and added {{Personality rights}} which I would hope would meet any legitimate concern the subject of the photo might have. I am the person who took these photos (at the Pop Conference), but I would like to duck out of monitoring this situation or trying to be involved on an administrative basis. It's a bit hard to be exactly sure of the user or users' intention (the changes were made without comment). I don't really care whether the photos are kept or not, but someone needs to get this person into a discussion to at least clarify intent and I don't think it should be me. If some admin establishes that this account is really the subject of the photos and that it would be appropriate to remove the photos as a courtesy, fine, it's not like this is an encyclopedically important person, simply someone who presented at an important conference. I'm mostly annoyed that this person seems to be trying to accomplish the equivalent of a courtesy deletion by underhanded means like adding an unjustified tag or making vandalistic edits, and I don't think my further active involvement in the situation would be constructive. - Jmabel ! talk 06:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Portlandia for comment on his/her edits. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

vandal attention

I would ask all colleagues to watch high-profile pages, such as Main Page‎, George W. Bush‎ and Dick Cheney incl. their talkpages, as there have been several waves of targeted attacks by a determined vandal since last night, using 69.178.193.173 (talk · contribs), 72.101.37.119 (talk · contribs), 75.221.53.155 (talk · contribs), 69.178.195.123 (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a cross-wiki vandal, as per [14], [15], [16]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Bosnian Kingdom???

I have just noticed the violation regarding the flag of Bosnian Kingdom. The user 'The_Emirr' submitted the flag of Bosnian Kingdom which I haven't seen before during my studies of history. The source for the image is not provided and mentioned image is all over the wikipedia. Please do something, because this is ultimate kind of vandalism towards Bosnian history, or else I will be forced to report both your page and the author to all kinds of media, and make people laughing at you.


Link for disputable image is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Bosnian_Kingdom.svg?uselang=bs

Thank you!

Birthdayparty.jpg

The image File:Birthdayparty.jpg is apparently very attractive to vandalism. Is it possible to protect it so the anonymous users can't change it? Wouter (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done for 3 months. --ZooFari 16:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Seanmarti777

Deleted and blocked for the link falsifying. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Giornorosso

Puppadance

Note: Now i've seen that Cotton reported Puppadance here. I left the link, there are other details about the vandal. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please warn/block User:BlackYNeron

Please warn/block him for vandalism on my user talk page. At least one other user was attacked, too. --Denniss (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Image overwritten by unrelated content

I see that File:Joy.jpg was updated on March 5th. The original image depicts two Caucasian men and the replacement depicts an Asian woman, so there's either been a major error or an act of deliberate vandalism. Given that the original image showed K B Thompson, a male administrator at enwiki who died last December, vandalism is perhaps a more likely explanation. Please can you check this out and revert to the previous image if appropriate. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Dferg (talk · meta) 22:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That was quick, thanks. AFAICS as a non-sysop I couldn't revert the upload myself. Is that correct? - Pointillist (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Turkont

Please block this user, seems to be some kind of spambot account. --Denniss (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Agreed I should have looked at the earlier stuff when I deleted today's offering. --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some edits that needed

See last edit of this picture and other edits of user File:Kevin Maher Wwwj-20060227.jpg, I have restored some edits but seems to be some kind of strange edits in pictures--Motopark (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Chatterer

This user is a sock puppett of Jerry Dandrigde, who is blocked on several projects (see Global Contributions of Jerry Dandridge and the Blocking of Chatterer on de.wikipedia). Again, Jerry Dandridge uploaded several logos of movies, violating Commons' policy and using bogus permissions. Please delete all of the uploads and block the user account. --Andibrunt (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done but might be useful if the account was CU'd. --Herby talk thyme 14:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

user:50.88.203.225

Special:Contributions/50.88.203.225 is spamming 2011 Japanese quake/tsunami related pages with a link to a blogspot page. 184.144.160.156 05:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for speedily deleting two of the talk pages that contained only the blogspot link. 184.144.160.156 07:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. The edits has been reverted and the user warned so this is ✓ done. Jafeluv (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:195.76.80.113

195.76.80.113 (talk · contribs) has been adding unrelated content/vandalizing the description of Image:Cacao Aztec Sculpture.jpg, and has tripped filter 62 and 12 once. They have not stopped after repeated warnings, and I think a block should be placed to prevent further vandalism. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

79.191.236.178

79.191.236.178 (talk · contribs) is vandalizing Greek alphabet and is claiming to be a banned user. Probably needs a block. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Giornorosso

Based on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/36/20110302101847!Libyan_Uprising.svg and the Long live Gadaffi edit summary today, I submit that Giornorosso is a primary if not fully vandalism only account.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Nice guy.png

File:FlowersInCanada.png - same image, different name. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Yassie42731 & User:美作姫路

-FASTILY (TALK) 05:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - no idea why no one else dealt with it. --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily

Yassie42731さん、美作姫路さんの正当な編集を荒らし呼ばわりし、個人攻撃を繰り返している。--Ljgq (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

自分の会話ページでの警告除去、対話拒否もひどい。即時ブロックすべき。--Ljgq (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandal accounts only - ignore. --Herby talk thyme 08:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Amelie15

Taken care of. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sfdfdeawqxxd

User:Sfdfdeawqxxd - all contributions - vandalism. --Art-top (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of by Manuelt15. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

user talk:Alex Smotrov

Please delete user talk:Alex Smotrov and semi-protect from creation (or just semi-protect if you really think that greeting template needs to stay). Please semi-protect user:Alex Smotrov indefinitely. Thank you in advance. —AlexSm 18:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. User page semi-protected indefinitelly. User talk page cleaned and semi-protected too.
--Dferg (talk · meta) 13:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

109.58.134.170

109.58.134.170 (talk · contribs) - please block this user because of persistent vandalism / spam about a company (this one) of Somalia - Trijnstel (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done –Krinkletalk 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dlawndud2002

Resolved
Deleted the latest contribution and left a final warning. Jafeluv (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Hrii100

Resolved

シアーシャたんで抜いちゃうロリコンヤッシー

Resolved

美姫ちゃんガンバ

Resolved

美姫はこれからも頑張る

Resolved

NJIJ

Resolved

Leandrobaesadf

Resolved

Ars0nist553, cross-wiki vandal

Ars0nist553 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) —Vandalism-only account that I just blocked on the English Wikipedia. The image they uploaded is being used to vandalise Wikipedia articles, so I;d appreciate it if that could be quickly zapped, as well. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Sorted thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Riahi

Nothing untoward on the account. Suggest no further action unless there is evidence of vandalism.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Onkelbo

Pending

Solomanno1

Pending
Dropped a {{test}} on their page, but at this stage not clearly only for vandalism. Watch would be my statement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This user's already been indefblocked on enwiki for vandalism. —innotata 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible cross-wiki sockpuppets of ja:LTA:MIKI (3/30/2011)

Resolved

User Toilet

Don't have enough time to look at this but from a quick glance it seems to be time for a block here looking at the user talk page? --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I am supporting this block request. This user is seemingly unable to understand the scope of Commons. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Strange thing is, that he never ever reacted on the dicussion site (whatever language). Just uploading and ignoring...--Yikrazuul (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Has been blocked for 3 months by another administrator. --Dferg (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thx, should I start (another) mass deletion request or somewhat? --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've started said request: Commons:Deletion requests/Drawings of User:Toilet. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Since this is a revenant, I deleted all those poor drawings. This user is a bit weird. On one hand he produced crap like this, on the other hand he uploaded quite a lot pictures of nature (esp. birds) and several pictures from Peru or Nepal (although I'm not sure whether he is the author, all those pictures from Peru and Nepal have a "picasa" entry in the exif-data! axpdeHello! 21:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Guillaume305

Resolved
Already ✓ Done (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections). --High Contrast (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Anti-atomkraft-demo berlin 2011 03 26.jpg

Can somebody have a look at this diff and this one? What are the next steps to take? Or does the author just have no permission and tries to remove this picture? Thank you. --RE RILLKE Questions? 08:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the uploader said it was his own work, so there shouldn't be any permission issue. Whatever he's trying to do, he should open a DR instead of blanking the license, as you already told him. If he's not willing to do that, and continues damaging this description page, he should be blocked for a little while. –Tryphon☂ 09:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the image to prevent further IP vandalism. --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks --RE RILLKE Questions? 09:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Ogg

Resolved

User:SpiderMuffy is a faker

User:SpiderMuffy uploaded a clearly faked image (and nothing else). Even if this already happened three years ago, he should be blocked IMHO. --Rosenzweig δ 17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Humm... with all due respect I disagree and I think a block might not be appropiate here. Blocks are for prevention, SpiderMuffy (talk · contributions · Statistics) does not contribute since 2008. This is not a decline but a personal comment. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked the corresponding account on de.wp. Anybody who uploaded a fake once may do so again. --Rosenzweig δ 18:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Image has now been deleted as copyvio (non-attributed derivative of File:Fernmeldeturm Brackenheim 1 20061118.jpg). However, I don't see any need for a block, as he/she had only 1 upload. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Manderzwicky

  • User: Manderzwicky (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  • Reasons for reporting: Keeps posting X-rated images of his penis despite having been asked to stop several times. De728631 (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    Some people like to upload many pictures of animals or nature as well. COM:PORN states that such images have to go through a standard deletion request. I don't see this as a vandalism issue unless the user is posting those pictures on people's talk pages or some such activity. – Adrignola talk 14:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    It also states that low-quality genitalia images are generally deleted quickly. That's why I also tagged them. Although the vandalism issue here is the ignorance of all the warning templates and requests to stop uploading such images. Why is there a {{Nopenis}} message after all? De728631 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    I see the problem that he is not really interested in commons as platform for educational purposes: Doesn't respond to any deletion request, doesn't look that we have many, many pictures of penesis (what makes his dick so important?), does not even notice anything what on his disussion side is going on. Just uploading, gladly commons is a free webhost for private images ("my penis..."). --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Champion13

Resolved

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:82.198.250.4

Resolved

82.198.250.4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Seems to be a school or slt. It got blocked for 1 month in 2008, and two contribs this March were even deleted by a sysop. --FalconL ?! 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Block for a month by Dferg. Bidgee (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

shoe catalog uploader user:Fjlight4

Resolved

User:Fjlight4 uploads his shoe catalog. Images not really useable since they are full of advertisements. Also created a advert page at zh:User:Fjlight4 (seems to be directly copied from a spam mail). I guess we can treat this as no intention to help us. ;) Nuke? DR needed? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Images deleted and user has been warned but if they upload them again they will be blocked. Bidgee (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Gonolonda

Page-move vandalism. Please block. --Denniss (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


EL983

Resolved
Images deleted and user blocked. Bidgee (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Alissonkdshot

Resolved
Blocked. Bidgee (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Blood libel

User:Wowlover

Wowlover (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Vandalism only account. --Leyo 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Jafeluv (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation, commons style

I'm not even going to post the file name, but could someone take a look at Category:Copyright violations and delete the filename starting with "Arla"? It's been up for for 6 hours now; I wis attempts at ruining a person by pasting naked pictures of them on Commons would get quicker attention! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of by High Contrast. --Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fake userpage

Some user try to create fake userpage User:H.Gautam, can someone inform to him.--Motopark (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again and notified the user. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


Jovany Liascos

Resolved
Warned. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Blonay–Chamby Museum Railway

Linkspam - deleted german wikibook. -- Knergy (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not the whole page, only linkspam/add unwanted weblinks (on a deleted german wikibook which was re-uploaded on a private homepage). -- Knergy (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The page needs a clean-up, it is almost article like and doesn't follow COM:GALLERY. Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Charlie wilson

Resolved

Posting fake photoshopped pictures of Benazir Bhutto and using them to vandalize her article on en.wiki. Please block user and delete all of these. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki).

How so? Nearly all the files have OTRS permission confirmed or pending. – Adrignola talk 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well a picture of Benazir Bhutto with a vibrator on her table does strike me as a little odd. It raises questions as to the authenticity of the other pictures from this uploader, obviously. –Tryphon☂ 22:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I am strongly inclined to believe these are all faked images. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Upon closer examination the first thing that would be evident without even looking at the differing faces is that a Pakistani woman would not be appearing with bared legs in photographs. I'll have to agree and deleted them, with a block to the user for uploading such libelous images. – Adrignola talk 01:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mrees63

Resolved
Yet no new uploads on commons, so I see no reason to block at this moment. axpdeHello! 10:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yassieのオナペット

Resolved

See gallery Yassieのオナペット, there seems to be asome vandalism. Thanks--Motopark (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by Matanya and protected by myself. axpdeHello! 10:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, ゲデ子で抜いちゃう変態ヤッシー (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) is a long-term vandal. See CU-case. --Dferg (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

PFMuffinStrike458

Resolved
✓ Done   ■ MMXX  talk  09:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Inherited Infection

Some IP will revert all time speedy from Inherited Infection, please delete--Motopark 11:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Dferg (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Created again.--Motopark 11:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
110.172.131.244 blocked with an expiry time of 1 day. Reason: Creating pages out of project scope after warnings. --Dferg (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

constant slachtoffer van inbraak met betrekking van al mijn gegevens doorf criminele organisaties

Zou graag met iemand contact hebben om over voorvallen te praten betreffende vandalisme bestrijding ivm computersystemen. Al enige tijd gebruiken ze al mijn gegevens op verschillende manieren en weet niet wat voor impact dit zal hebben wanneer dit op grotere schaal toegepast wordt. Ben met personen in contact geweest die niet half beseffen wat ze inorde kunnen maken integendeel door wat er stuk gemaakt wordt.

Regelmatig doe ik opzoekwerken en tot mijn grote verbazing klopt er veel van wat ik al jaren duidelijk probeer te maken aan personen en instanties echter bij nazicht op verschillende bronnen blijkt dit wel duidelijk bewezen te worden. Voel me echt dom omdat pas jaren nadien dit door meerdere bewezen wordt en ik op niets heb kunnen rekenen om mijn persoonlijke toestand in orde te brengen.

vandenheuvelvicky@gmail.com

Graag reactie aub

I'm sorry, I don't see the connection (if any) to Commons. I don't read Dutch all that well (I'm sort of triangulating from German and English). But this page is about dealing with vandalism of the Wikimedia Commons, and that doesn't seem to be what you are writing about. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving and editing of Atlases by User:23prootie

Most of these edits in question are from January 2011 and has been move atlases to native names for months User:23prootie has changed the Atlas of British Indian Ocean Territory Introduction and Name to reflect a Chagossian biased slant and moved said atlas to Atlas of the Chagos Archipelago,

Here are the other Atlases that have been changed to a biased slant:

Atlas of the Paracel Islands

Atlas of Muslim Mindanao

Atlas of the Spratly Islands

I don't know how to fix this without messing up said Atlases

BionicWilliam (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocean Iwe

Resolved
One of the few things I feel strongly about - blocked - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dinic.david

Pending

User uploads watermaked pictures whole time

Special:Contributions/JV010ASIH uploads watermaked pictures whole time, please detete them and block--Motopark (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tom.png

User:Noormohammed_satya

Please look into this user and contributions...many are copyvios......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

77.255.212.106

Resolved
Blocked by Wikitanvir. Jafeluv (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, his creating new categories with Polish names already existing in English D T G (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC) And is consistentl ydeleting my user category from my own photos D T G (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ blocked again   ■ MMXX  talk  20:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Claude.jpg

XP Games (talk · contributions · Statistics) has uploaded under "upload new version" a different picture. Please restore the correct version. XP Games is a indefinite blocked ptwiki vandal abusing Commons with his fakes. --Gunnex (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File reverted by User:Mmxx, User:XP Games blocked for interwiki vandalism. axpdeHello! 14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png

This file would need a revert and a protection. Oh, and a user block as well. Thanks. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 01:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Already reported here. By the way, it's not very optimal that our admin noticeboards overlap so much that the same things end up both here, at COM:AN and at COM:AN/B. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Inkaclassic

Español: User:Inkaclassic viola sistemáticamente los copyright. Además manipula indebidamente las páginas de consulta de borrado y miente en su página de usuario, afirmando que es un administrador y otras falsedades

--. HombreDHojalata.talk 15:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ User blocked   ■ MMXX  talk  15:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Cody Isaacs.jpg

Used for vandalism of en:Autism. Uploader is blocked (by me) on English Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done.--Trixt (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

77.255.159.204

Blocked for a week this time--Jarekt (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Polish_locomotive_enthusiast--Jarekt (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
77.255.145.237 ... D T G (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just attempting to upload a photo of actress Bobbie Phillips, but says I've been blocked...

Hello, I'm new to this. But as a photographer and friend of actress Bobbie Phillips, a former photo I posted was removed some time ago. I am attempting to post another public photo and it said I've been blocked and to contact you. Please help as I do have some newer photos of this lovely actress and I would appreciate being able to share with her fans and Wikipedia readers. Kindest Regards, Charlie Kidman — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKidman (talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not blocked. But if you're trying to upload this image from Flickr at File:Bobbie Phillips headshot.jpg, please note that we will remove the picture again. There is no proof whatsoever that the Flickr user was the photographer; better versions of this image exist in various locations, including IMDB. Lupo 10:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Serial vandal migrating from English Wikipedia

One of many incarnations of a serial vandal with usernames from the Pirates of the Caribbean universe. Favonian (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That guy is indefed. Any others? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Didn't see any in your user list, but he's getting frustrated by an edit filter at en-Wiki, so we may see more of him here. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold and wave

Hold and wave (talk · contribs) is unnecessarily tagging images for deletion. He may be the same person as this little one (same editing habits). May I suggest you also do a CU on him, as he may be a sock of this guy. Island Monkey (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree that user is a problem. Numerous deletion requests that don't seem to have any basis beyond random guess of the "maybe the stated source/license isn't true" type. User has been cautioned multiple times; user quickly removes such messages from talk page. Infrogmation (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user and talk pages (en:User:Feed your bike biscuits)

Apparently, the "feed your bike biscuits" vandal from Wikipedia has decided to move to Commons, and has vandalized my user and talk pages. See the contributions as follows:

Please block these vandals as appropriate. --Elkman (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All blocked. Might want to contact a checkuser to dig out the rest of this person's accounts. Jafeluv (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


this is another one. Tagged several talkpages as socket-puppies. Mabdul (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh saw already blocked. Thanks. Mabdul (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
the next one. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
For info I've CU'd the last couple and taken necessary action. --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


71.65.70.158

Resolved


Hammurabi90

Pending
✓ Sorted thanks --Herby talk thyme 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

HomeRun1992

Pending
✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Noname022

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Matt Tubbs.jpg

Used for vandalism of en:Matt Tubbs. Uploader is blocked (by me) on English Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Image deleted and user blocked. Bidgee (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

DodoImortall

Resolved

ILoveHyunA

Resolved

Hihira

Resolved
Warned and contribs deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:HUGAAAA

Resolved

Hihira (again)

Resolved
Blocked for a week. Jafeluv (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Greathorse

Resolved
Already globally locked. Jafeluv (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Именно Йа

Resolved
Blocked, thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rickii97

Resolved
The contributions have been deleted and the user warned about promotional editing. Jafeluv (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

193.107.215.195

ResolvedBlocked one month
✓ Blocked for one month.   ■ MMXX  talk  20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexabordenfan

ResolvedBlocked 3 days
Blocked in infinite by Abigor, replaced by a 3 days block by me since this was the first block and the user didn't even uploaded anything after the end copyvios warning by Turélio.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

EvaK

Resolved
Ähem, EvaK was indef-blocked already on May 10, 2011. --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There should be a firm decision by administration to prevent continuing this trouble later. -- Simplicius (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is resolved since 10 May as you have already been told. That account is permanently blocked.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It was blocked on individual wish of EvaK. It is not a decision by admins as you can find in the explanation above. Yet just a smoke-ball. -- Simplicius (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reblocked them with a more descriptive block summary. Better? Jafeluv (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you very much! -- Simplicius (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

91.210.131.219

Resolved
Done by Jcb. --Dferg (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on various file- and talk pages

Resolved
✓ Done: 1 abf «Cabale!» 12:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Iglesialuteranadel buenpastor

Resolved
The account hasn't edited since being warned about the project's scope. If the promotional edits continue after the warning a block may be necessary, but at this point it's probably premature. Jafeluv (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Madelit

Resolved
Madelit blocked with an expiry time of infinite. Reason: AN/V. --Dferg (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

JOSH tw

Resolved
The last version of June 3rd would have been a bit better because the borderline near en:Kinmen was wrong but it is okay as it is more important that the reverts are stopped. Thank you very much. NNW (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Urbanuntil

Resolved
I've deleted the logos except those which qualify as text/simple logo. I'm watching him, therefore if he insists he will be blocked, but for the moment I don't believe no other action is necessary. Thanks for reporting.-- Darwin Ahoy! 05:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Returned now and started vandalizing a lot of files, therefore blocked for 1 week.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lucas Chalub

Resolved
 Not done The editor made only one deleted edit. And he seems to edit no longer here. – Kwj2772 (msg) 06:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, for me the situation could be considered as resolved. The user also stopped on the Wp. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 10:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Again, but now 17. July he made a lot vandalism! -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 18:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: The user was indefinitely blocked by Blurpeace as vandal-only account. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nickhammer

Pending

Dgolitsis

Resolved

blocked for 3 days Ezarateesteban 22:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ณว

Pending
Note: the categories created by the user (Dhammayietra, Dhammayietra in Thailand, Dhammayietra for Lam Pa Tao River Basin and Phra Paisal Visalo) are composed only by copyvio-tagged images and so will be deleted (of course, if the copyvio is checked). Picture and images is a redundant duplicate of Pictures and images. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 days pending further analysis of his uploads. Yann (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ElkmanWIKI (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Once again, I'm being targeted by a vandal, ElkmanWIKI (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . I don't know what I did to irritate this idiot, but my user page and talk page are being targeted by people using variations of my user name.

Does Commons have semi-protection like en-wp has? What's the chance I could get my user and talk pages semi-protected? --Elkman (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you made friends on en wp and the issue got imported here. S-prot page and talk page for a bit. User blocked and source IP (which I had blocked previously) likewise. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on various file- and talk pages (2)

Resolved

✓ Done--Ezarateesteban 18:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: I just changed the range:

  • 79.197.61.0/24
  • 79.197.52.0/24
  • 79.197.46.0/24

So too many Ips are affected Ezarateesteban 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help; one question: are all IP's of this user blocked now (see here for more IP's)? Trijnstel (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 now yes Ezarateesteban 22:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. Again, thanks for your help! Trijnstel (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Matheus SVU

Pending

Pispaule

Pending
.... well, then let's wait for more vandalism by him. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 20:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
...naja, ich denke das war so ein Eintagsrüpel. Abwatschen derzeit nicht von Nöten. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
okay, ich werde mit dem Finger auf dich zeigen! ;) Ist ja nicht so, dass Sperren Speicherplatz verbrauchen würden ... Aber von mir aus:  Not done. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 02:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Download the file is locked

City_​​department_store_in_Partizansk.JPG

When you first boot forgot to license. What should I do? Thanks.--Peruanec (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:City_​​department_store_in_Partizansk.JPG — no log, apparently no file has been uploaded with that name. --AVRS (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dmitry G

Hi!

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I think one may consider it vandalism. I'd like to report on User:Dmitry G who is using Wikimedia Commons to promote his deep hatred against Estonia. Here are some examples:

I think that that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but this guy is deliberately trying to offend Estonian people and cultivate hatred against Estonia.--WooteleF (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Zayzilla

Resolved
*✓ Blocked by A.Savin. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

HorseWitch

Pending
  1. The user recreated a still deleted page that is a copy of en:Comparison of European traffic signs, adding a not existant French interlink (fr:Compertgls ui erta passege) deleted 3 times and created by him/her (note: compertgls ui erta passege is meaningless). Also Road signs in Japan (now better organized as a Commons gallery per COM:SCOPE) was originally a copy of en:Road signs in Japan.
  2. The user created a page, Road signs in Badziki, with an unclear meaning. Searching on Google, Badziki seems to be a sort of Polish word related to the collection of pin buttons. It makes little sense as another (now deleted) gallery (All-way yield sign). For details about "Badziki", see also the Google links i've added on the talk page.
  3. HW's edit on fr:Panneau STOP en France was reverted as vandalism and also on :fr:Modèle:Signaux de priorité français (the reason given by the rollbacker is, translated in English: This is a template reguarding traffic signs used in France, not in Quebec). Also on :pl:Porównanie europejskich znaków drogowych the user removed French stop sign adding the one used in Quebec (File:Arret Quebec.svg is a clear name, and the Category:Stop signs in Canada has lot of this pics). Please note: As said, European traffic signs was copied/pasted from en:Comparison of European traffic signs. It has only a particular difference: The picture of French STOP sign is not the French one, but the Quebecan one.

Some contribs make sense, some other seems to be a joke, using meaningless words or wrong road signs. Possibly a crosswiki vandal. Some admins on fr.wiki and pl.wiki may be noticed and his "normal" contribs should be controlled. --Dэя-Бøяg 21:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Road signs in Hotsapore (and others) looks like to me to Road signs in Badziki (what's a hotsapore? at enwiki is similar to what's a badziki? here :-) )... en:Road signs in Rafid remember me the content of All-way yield sign (talking about road signs in Rafid)... It seems that HorseWitch could be a sockpuppet of Jermboy27, the style is the same. So he could be a crosswiki-vandal with sp, by now detected by me on French WP and Polish WP. Personally, after this note of Mike Rosoft (thanks), I have no more doubts... --Dэя-Бøяg 16:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has been indefinitely blocked by Herbythyme. --Dэя-Бøяg 21:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please note: HorseWitch2 uploaded a new version of File:Yield sign.svg, Jermboy27 uploaded a new version of File:Italian traffic signs - senso vietato.svg. I was not able to revert 'em to the last version. File:AB4.png, File:No u turn.png, File:GIVE WAY.png are probably hoaxes and may be deleted. Their descriptions are hoaxes (again Hotsapore, see above). --Dэя-Бøяg 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually see this (sorry - too busy) however I did find and block the puppets :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

112.202.64.232

Please block 112.202.64.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hyunkm9

Resolved

Falerístico

Resolved

109.12.67.35

Resolved
Note: By now, after warnings, the user stopped to make this strange contribs. Maybe in good faith. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done I deleted all out of scope pages - no more action is needed imo. Trijnstel (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Labronx12

Murillo garcia

Resolved
Uploads nuked and warning added to talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by user Jameslwoodward

User Jameslwoodward (talk to me) and I have had a disagreement over policy implementation, and as a result of a decision against his judgement [[27]], he is retorting with deleting a legitimate image that I uploaded in an abusive and arbitrary manner without due process and least the courtesy of notyfying me as the author of such act according to policy [[28]]. I ask the community to evaluate his disruptive, vindictive and vandalistic behaviour. The reason given in the deletion log is a partial and deceiving statement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored this image, which was deleted out of process. One may not agree with Tomas, but that's not a reason not to follow standard deletion procedures. Yann (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
@Yann, about what you said in the related thread on your talkpage: yes, maybe that we sometimes delete files which are borderline and eventually wouldn't need deletion. However, as you are well aware, we aren't copyright lawyers and we don't have access to legal experts for our daily work-load. Though WMF's legal counsel is quite good-willing, we can't involve him in routine matters and in sophisticated copyright issues even he might not be an expert. Actually, I've become rather pessimistic about the WMF's way to run Commons (legally) by completely relying on unpaid non-legally educated volunteers. Anyway, as this is the Commons we are living in, we have to rely on our own acquired experience plus what's written in our policies and in doubt have to follow COM:PRP. --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo, I have immense respect for your contributions here at Commons but with your vendetta against Jameslwoodward you've gone too far. You've described Jameslwoodward as unqualified before and now you do not even hesitate to characterize his work as vandalism. You are complaining that you were not notified but you did neither contact Jameslwoodward nor did you attempt to follow any of the regular procedures to get an image undeleted. This leaves the impression that this vendetta against one particular admin is of greater importance than the factual issue behind this conflict. While the image you are referring to was apparently deleted by accident (it does not appear to be a case of COM:DW as the others in the series but I wonder how it fits into COM:SCOPE), I agree with the previous deletions of the balloon pictures. If you would be really interested in saving these images for Commons, you should have tried instead what we did before for File:BallonKathedrale01 edit.jpg where we actually got the permission by the copyright holders (I haven't photographed that but I was involved in the process to get the permission). If you need help in such procedures, just ask me. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

But for these photos, permission by the balloon makers would probably not be sufficient. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, I know, but there exists a well known copyright holder who can be asked. At times it is simply amazing what you can get by simply asking (contact address is here). The point is that Wikipedia (not necessarily the WMF or Wikimedia Commons) is now widely known which makes it easier. I cannot guarantee that this is successful but we do not know it unless we try it. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

AFBorchert, I appreciate your comments, and without expressing my points of view and the rationaled of my opinions, just visit this interesting exchange: [[29]], and Jim´s page talk as well. In short, judgement on my work and disposition has been passed a priori, with a looming sentence clearly stated by Herbythyme when he says: Maybe post on an admin board just to broaden it out but if Tomascastelazo does not behave better there may only be one outcome available sadly. It would be interesting to find out what my bad behaviour consists of and what the only one outcome is. Jim even implies that I am a vandal. He gracefully brands me however as a different class of vandal. Draw your own conclusions.

Now, the issue really is censorship, which seems to be a word that many people don´t like, myself most of all. I am not opposed to deleting images that are clear violations of intellectual property, etc., but the interpretation that some people have of the rules and the law clearly are beyond the intent of the law and common practices. Commons cannot be the international police for possible violations of copyrights or unlawful use of images, especially if they are of editorial and educational value and depictions of public events. This is an issue of free speech, censorship and common sense.

Now considering the state of affairs between Jim and myself, I find it hard to believe that it was an accidental deletion, so I followed Commons policy stated here: [[30]], I filed a notice on this board.

Respectfully, --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if the deletion was not justified, I think that calling it vandalism is a bit excessive. Now that the image is restored, can we move on to some fruitful works? Yann (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
File:BallonKathedrale01 edit.jpg may be a precedent for requiring OTRS permission from copyright holders of 3D balloon artwork that are registered as vehicles. I would remind Tomascastelazo of "assume good faith" (es:Wikipedia:Presume buena fe). "Deletion by Jameslwoodward" would have been a neutral title for this section. File:Hot air balloon ballon festival with censored characters.jpg seems to me to be mildly disruptive and out of scope. We have the Commons:Undeletion requests and Commons:Deletion requests processes to deal with disputes over licenses and copyrights. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think my actions speak for themselves. However, let's make sure that we understand just what I did and why.
Last year, User:Tomascastelazo, uploaded File:Darth_vader_hot_air_balloon.jpg which is a beautiful, fun, image of a hot air balloon in the shape of Darth Vader's head which may or may not itself be licensed by Lucasfilms, but in any case the image is clearly a derivative work. User:Trycatch nominated it for deletion and after considerable discussion, I deleted it at the end of the DR. User:Tomascastelazo was the only person in favor of keeping it, arguing that because it was in a public place, it should be OK to photograph it for Commons, and if Lucasfilms wanted to sue it wasn't our problem, but the problem of anyone who used the photograph.
Subsequently, User:Tomascastelazo created and uploaded File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg and nominated it for Featured Picture. It shows the original image with the Darth Vader blanked out and the word "Censored" over it. It was nominated for deletion by User:79.237.177.28. After the usual seven days, I deleted it. Again, the only comment in favor of keeping it came from User:Tomascastelazo.
After that deletion, User:Tomascastelazo created and uploaded File:Hot air balloon ballon festival with censored characters.jpg which is very similar, but not identical to the previous deletion. He again nominated it for FP.
Our speedy deletion policy permits speedy deletion of an image which "Has previously been deleted under Commons deletion guidelines." I took the view that a very similar image -- one with all the same issues -- falls under that rule. I think that is a correct interpretation of policy -- otherwise a disgruntled user could ignore Commons:Undeletion request and simply upload a slightly different image, as happened here. I therefore deleted the image as a speedy, with the edit comment, "‎Recreation of content deleted per community consensus: Use an undeletion request."
That is where we were when this discussion started. I am, admittedly, frustrated by the time and effort which has been wasted by this issue. As I see it, User:Tomascastelazo, who, by the way, has uploaded many truly beautiful images to Commons, simply does not understand derivative works and the rules surrounding them. He believes that we should be able to host any image of anything that is in a public place, whether permanent or temporary and whether or not we have the permission of the creator. That might be a good thing, but it doesn't match Commons rules or the law.
In pursuit of his theory, he has created, uploaded, and nominated as FP two different images calling us Censors -- I say "us" advisedly, because the deletions have all been in accordance with process. He has also written a great many words on my talk page, other talk pages, and elsewhere, all of which have required time and effort to answer.
I do not propose that we take any action against User:Tomascastelazo -- I value his contributions too highly for that, but I do think he should be firmly instructed to stop his destructive campaign against our policy. If he wants to change policy, he should do it in the appropriate place and not with Featured Picture nominations.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 Support, per Jim's and Andreas' statements. --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose per Tomas' statements. I also disagree about delitition. Object was in public place. The image that was deleted was featured picture, so the FP nomination page was appropriate in this case. Somethimes you need to ignore all rules if you think you do something right. If it wasn't on FP nomination I probably wouldn't know about this. Furthermore, the last nomination stand for itself. It's actually how copyrighted sky would look. --Lošmi (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Tomascastelazo, to assume publically bad faith in regard to another fellow here is a dangerous weapon which can happen to be applied in reverse. This is particularly true if its only ground is a single deletion of a file. From what you refer to I see only one admin asking a fellow admin how to handle your complaint. The point is that exactly because you are not a vandal but a very respected member in our community, it really hurts to read such a complaint as this which tells that Kanguroo courts rule here and where you characterize the closing argument of the DR as logical as arguing that the earth is flat and the sky pink. That Herbythyme and others feel sadly about this escalation should not be surprising. We can certainly understand to some extent the frustration when a FP candidate gets deleted and we could have well skipped this unfortunate encounter which happened two and half weeks ago. But if this still continues, it is just disrupting. This is not a question of censorship as you claim as we, as you are well aware, are very cautionary at Commons regarding copyright per our precautionary principle. In this we differ significantly from other sites which usually do not act until they'll get a DMCA notice. And many possible usages are usually covered by the "fair use" excemption which is, as you should know, not accepted at Commons (we are bound to that as we are not allowed to install a Exemption Doctrine Policy). In summary, Jameslwoodward simply executed policy and I would have similarly closed the DR. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dj2782

Resolved

Cpides98

ResolvedBlocked. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

user:ChaseJ589

This user, despite being warned many times, is still uploading copyrighted images to the commons. Recently he has attempted to upload two different versions of the Dell logo. Phearson (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by MarcoAurelio. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Mattmtz2011

Resolved

香具師マッハ躍進で

Resolved

Special:Contributions/Harry_and_Marv

Please block, see history--Motopark (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Jim blocked him for a week; I changed it to infinity due to this person being a longterm crosswiki vandal. Trijnstel (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I did the week pending the outcome of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ogrouhgrjo -- none of the names rang a bell with me. Looks like we probably have two new David Beals socks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I've started with a (complete) vandalism report/file here. Trijnstel (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

IXL3g3nDIX

Resolved

71.7.235.207

Resolved
Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Dust429

This is a prolific sockpuppeteer and vandal who has migrated from English Wikipedia and tries to continue doing what he does best. The message left on my talk page pretty much says it all. Please wring his neck. Favonian (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User awarded with an infinite wikibreak. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


Trowbridge tim

Resolved
✓ Done - Indefblock by Wikitanvir. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 09:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

94.132.113.203

Resolved
Note: I've transformed his nonsense new page (Ur) into a redirect to the existant category. --Dэя-Бøяg 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done, blocked for 1 day. See also here. Trijnstel (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Dэя-Бøяg 21:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

94.132.113.203 reloaded

Resolved
✓ Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispota poppo

Resolved

:Note: He stopped (by now) after the various warning notices. The problem (by now) seems to be resolved. --Dэя-Бøяg 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: User started again uploading the same pictures deleted some minutes ago and creating the same page. Sufficiently warned, write-only. PS: 182.178.31.117 started again removing tags and editing on the pages created by Dispota poppo. --Dэя-Бøяg 06:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Note-2: I've noticed Dispota poppo also at enwiki. IMHO crosswiki vandal in write-only, not interested by Wikimedia policies. --Dэя-Бøяg 06:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Note-3:. Again on action uploading the same copyvio image. One minute after, 182.178 etc starts adding pic and removing tags at enwiki. Please block him soon. After 10 notices everyone can understand the WM policies. --Dэя-Бøяg 06:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, i'm goin' crazy to follow this quartet (Dispota and 182) here and at enwiki. I'll watch his contribs. Could you block the anon also? --Dэя-Бøяg 06:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanx again. Ehr... If you retain it necessary, is it possible to block also 182.178.31.117? --Dэя-Бøяg 06:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
As I blocked the account with Automatically blocked IP addresses, the IP is also blocked. No need to block it separately. Yann (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is related to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akshata Sen. I brought it up on Herbythyme's talk page yesterday. Will alert Herby to this thread. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Dispota poppo

Thanks to SpacemannSpiff for notification. Reguarding the SP investigation at en.wp and after a control to this category... I've summarized a list of possible sp of Dispota with an account here.

...Wow :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 16:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked all the name accounts here and at Meta. (the two projects they weren't blocked on I have access to the block button) Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Angel stalin & Joselyn Ceferino

Resolved
Both blocked. Courcelles (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks rather like a class project or similar who do not understand Commons - I could be wrong but some AGF would seem sensible. --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hoang003

Resolved

Blood libel

Pending
Note: I've investigated after reading above, reguarding the anti-Semitic meaning of that username. As I suppose, looking at the Ř (R with háček), this is Czech language... Anyway, as for Google Translator, "Podřezaná obřezanými" means "undercuts circumcised"... IMHO, anti-Semitic. --Dэя-Бøяg 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kicker Fucker

Resolved

Calcineur anti-corrida POV-pushing

Hi.

Calcineur (talk · contribs) has been POV-pushing against corrida by adding twice the Category:Criticisms of bullfighting on 13 images that are not directly related to this topic (see his latest contributions). This goes against COM:Cat. Badzil (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(This might not be the best place to report this. If not, please let me know where I could do it.) Badzil (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be good if you told Calcineur of your objections before trying to involve Admins in your problem -- I do not see any discussion on your talk page or his.
As for location, this page is for vandalism, and while repeated edits can rise to that level, this isn't there. I agree that it can be difficult to figure out where to put a problem -- we have many venues for discussion, but I would suggest that you might better have brought this to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Do not go there now, though -- it is here and it can stay here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and actions. It is true that I have not discussed this with Calcineur. He is well-known on the Francophone Wikipedia for his anti-corrida POV, his actions having led to his unlimited ban (fr:Utilisateur:Calcineur). Thanks also for the pointer to the right place to report such problems. Badzil (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Put a note on my talk page if he continues his disruptive behavior after you have talked to him.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll make sure to talk to him before coming back here. Badzil (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

IN5ANITY49

Resolved

Please delete contributions of IN5ANITY49 (talk · contribs) and block indefinitely. This is a personal attack account (aimed at a real-life person) which I blocked on en.wiki. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely and deleted all.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

141.105.65.70

Pending
Wrong, I'm just trying « to present a fair, neutral description of the facts» (Neutral point of view), thx. Best regards --193.252.49.53 15:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
May be in your opinion, but 1) adding such a cat to a image with a identifiable person may be slander and 2) adding such a cat to each single image related to corrida (of which I am not a friend) doesn't make sense. You may think about adding this category to the collective corrida cat. --Túrelio (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI:
Badzil (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please act on this issue. Calcineur continues his sabotaging actions under IP: 78.114.206.189 (talk · contribs). Badzil (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for a day. Yann (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sabotage by IP Number to-day

Somebody from IP No 178.232.124.8 seems to be systematically sabotaging Wikimedia Commons to-day by requesting deletion of a big number of pictures of sculptures located outdoor in Sweden. See e g. File:Arne_Jones_Katedral.JPG.

I propose that that that IP No should be blocked immediately without warning, as this hardly is anything performed in good faith. It might rather be an act by a lobby organisation proposing restrictions regarding panarasma rights iun Sweden. Ialso suggest that the IP No should be tracked to find out whether my suspiction is founded.Boberger (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked by Jcb. Yann (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My talkpage

I need my talkpage semiprotected against vandalism by ban-evading socks of User:Wikinger please. If possible, long-term protection as this is a long-term problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, 1 year. --Túrelio (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Saguamundi/Cooler88

Hi. In light of this Sockpuppet investigations case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Van_de_Kemp/Archive), this user continues to vandalize works of others. He never really contributes to Commons, but spends a lot of time to edit maps for his personal POV, especially the File:Climates of Europe. So, I think he should be blocked in Commons too, and maybe the file protected against other "future" socks (and revert of his edits of course). --Cooler88 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


    • We should either do the same blocks as the en wiki or we need a checkuser here as well. Either both are related to the same master or both are long-term sockpuppeteers fighting each other at en wiki. --Denniss (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User uploads new pictures to same name

User uploads new pictures to same name Special:Contributions/Yople1, please clean the history--Motopark (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done (in the next minutes). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

94.132.113.203

✓ Done

OK, I granted him a 6-month free holiday. Yann (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yanir10

Resolved

Amanda123

Resolved

✓ Done sockpupped of User:Chuckyreyna. --Ezarateesteban 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

SmokinStangs

Resolved

✓ Done User blocked, image deleted --Ezarateesteban 16:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Anne030851

Resolved

112.198.82.8

Resolved

✓ Sorted thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

76.110.174.202

Resolved


Jeffpw-Isaac

Pending
Please give us a link to the allegedly inappropriate edit. Without that, we have no way of determining the accuracy of your allegation.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that the user's only contribution is this image, I'd say that's what was meant. --Kramer Associates (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked, whatever - comes under the rare heading of something I will not tolerate. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Njm1986

Pending
RHDHBB (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is a propable sockpuppet: copyvios too, some pictures with same watermark text, same naming conventions, same subjects. - Gonioul (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I agree completely. I would suggest that it is likely that it is some form of puppet account. I've zapped the first mentioned users contribs a few minutes ago and feel the 2nd ones contrbs should go too but I've exceeded my admin work count for today and would like further input before putting in the overtime request (I'm sure folk will see the hint of humour here but just in case...!) --Herby talk thyme 14:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A new batch of pictures from Njm1986... and again found on other sites by google images... - Gonioul (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, blocked thanks. It would be good to have some other input on the apparent puppet account and the contribs anyone? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Konata Izumi

Blocked on en.wiki, uploaded vandal image used by sockpuppets to vandalize page on en.wiki. Please block and delete the image. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

I deleted the file and blocked the user in question. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WPK

OSX

Pending

Warning sign Warned, see User_talk:OSX#Category_removals_--_Block_warning. If he does it again, please put a note on my talk page and I will give him some time off.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

SU05Anisa

ResolvedBlocked: 2 weeks.
Blocked the uploader for two weeks. Many of the uploads still need more attention. Lymantria (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Carlos the Nazi

Resolved

202.229.177.40

Resolved

Penarc

Invalid

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Createaccount (talk • contribs)

 Not done - no reasons provided. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 12:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume the "{{{2}}}" should have linked to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sur1.gif&diff=prev&oldid=18791730. --Túrelio (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Weatherbug

Pending

Stefan4 (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he/she is blocked on enwiki isn't reason for block him/here here. I leave a message on his/her talk page. I don't close speedy the DR's becuase there isn't reason for that Ezarateesteban 16:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You accidentally left the message on my talk page instead. I have forwarded it to his talk page. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary rotation request by User:Oursana

User:Oursana has requested a rotation of File:Bellini selfportrait.jpg, which it wasn't needed any rotation. It is needed to revert to the previous version of the photo. --Sdrtirs (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted to the original. --Sdrtirs (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The user was trying to correct the image, thinking that rotate template would invert the image, making the portrait facing right. The user claims that the portrait is facing the wrong side. I also found a link of the same source site which shows the portrait facing right, instead facing left. If anyone has knowledge about the subject, please join at the image's talk page. --Sdrtirs (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Although a mistake, this rotation request was far from vandalism, just an honest effort to correct the image, which is, indeed, wrong here, see File talk:Bellini selfportrait.jpg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

HMKpic

 Not done

Stop yesterday, there isn't need to block him/her Ezarateesteban 18:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mythic Writerlord

Pending
I have protected his one remaining image so he cannot remove the {{Delete}} again and left a warning. Let me know if he acts up again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


Adityap.star

Pending
The attack page has been deleted and the user has been warned MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fabijuvenil

Resolved
Note: 186.114.250.147 could be probably the user not logged in. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked by A.Savin as spam-only account. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Meaghancool ‎

Resolved
User has stopped after notice. IMHO the question is resolved. --Dэя-Бøяg 11:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pocococa

Resolved
✓ Done --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 10:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:ElectricLucia.JPG

Resolved

Someone with a dynamic IP is doing silly edits like this to File:ElectricLucia.JPG. Could someone please semi-protect it until the vandal finds something better to do? Jonathunder (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

72 hours of semi-protection. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 10:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahonc

Resolved
It is not vandalism. There was RfD about this image and it was kept, I explain that to user Bulka, but he continue add template..--Anatoliy (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This problem was personal attack from one of sockpuppets of Bulka_UA to user Ahonc.
User:Bulka UA and sockpuppets blocked now. -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

John E.

Pending
Note: Look at this edit. Same content of the deleted article. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe this as vandalism -- just a misguided attempt to use Commons for self promotion, which violates COM:ADVERT. John E. ZAMMITPACE may have some notability -- Amazon is selling three pieces of his work -- but that does not give him the right to promote himself here. Let's wait and see what he does next.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

124.148.202.69 a.k.a. Jermboy (again)

Pending

In July, i've reported HorseWitch and sockpuppets, a crosswiki vandal (indefinitely blocked) interested in creation of hoaxes reguarding road signs. User made several disruptive (and difficult to find) edits changing something about road signs. Then he started creating pages about road signs into fake countries/places as "Badziki", Hotsapore, and others (here is my final report in august with the link to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jermboy27/Archive).

One month ago Dodomen created Dozec road signs (Dozec is nothing) and uploaded several road signs diagrams to use into Dozec-related fake categories. After the block, it appeared another anon, 74.104.115.155 contributing to it, blocked for 2 weeks, than Jermboy2711, indefinitely blocked. Then others... Now this anon continues the work. I'm searching for contribs to revert everything and tag for deletion all new contribs: files, pages and categories. Please note reguarding "Dozec": why a country with 43 highways (shields come from NZL) has no category here or an article at enwiki?

Contribs: Nonsense new contribs are Dozec road signs, Category:Diagrams of road signs of Dozec, Category:Road signs of Dozec by number and its 3 subcategories (Category:RGS 019 - Yield‎, Category:RGS 020 - Stop‎, Category:WG 001 - Crossroads‎).

Note: Some new pages, as road signs of Ireland, Iran, Japan, Russia, New York, New Zealand, Greece (a sort of duplicate of this) etc... make sense (apart from some vandalisms of his same sp, reverted). Some files were well categorized, others were categorized into that fake nations... I don't think this is a case of edit-schizophrenia; I think that Jermboy is the "James Moriarty of vandals". Due to the numbers of IP masks, edits, uploads and contribs, he is very able to shuffle serious edits and vandalisms and also to confuse users doesn't know all the history of his career. So, pages as Dozec road signs may pass in the chaos of his contribs. I recommend to watch about the serious pages I've linked above. Apart from Japan, patrolled by me in July and copy of the enwiki page, the others seems to be serious but I'm not sure about the one in Iran. I've tagged for deletion Road signs in Kuwait in august because it was a simple gallery of US road signs.

End: It was quite impossible for me to check all the contribs of Jermboy and sp. It gave me a big headache to make this report, and I suppose to have discovered the 10% of "all". Some of his anon contribs started in 2009 or 2008, and the confusion between normal edits and jokes is very tangled. Page by page, as for the ones I've linked above, there are dozens (or hundreds) of anon and newbie edits, sometimes repeating categories have been checked. 124.148.202.69 is the last vandal in action, and I suppose they will arrive others. To avoid all the problems I've explained, hoax pages and categories (in november as in july), I request for a very long rangeblock. The extent of damage caused by the user to Commons in last months (or years?) is considerable. Doese he loves road signs? Ok, let's give him a Stop ;-) . Sorry for length of my report, regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No time to look further but please do not rangeblock without consultation. Rangeblocks are a last resort unless we are quite sure that no good users are affected (& should always be very short). --Herby talk thyme 08:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok... Hmmm, maybe I was exaggerate askin' for rangeblock. A solution may be a long block to the IPs listed above or else. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: Jermboy2711 was indef blocked on sunday at enwiki. This is the contrib (see Dozec, Hotsapore -again-, United Land, Zingapore, New Rayland, Grayland, Prazil...). Lol. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes - I've lost track of the number of puppet accounts I've blocked here :) --Herby talk thyme 16:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
... The Fantastic World of Professor Jermoriarty Boy. We may apply a rangeblock to the ip addresses from Hotsapore ;-D . I've moved my list-report here, below, for a quick guide. I hope it could be helpful. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A brief scheme to help: Sockpuppets and style

Blocked between july and december
Possible anon sockpuppets
  • and lots more of anons 124., 203., 117. see the histories here, here etc. Suddenly he write Categories have been checked lots of time in the edit summary.
Style

User is interested into road signs, principally STOP and YIELD. He uses sometimes to upload them, and sometimes substitute to normal signs (some vandalism for Quebec at pl.wiki). He uses to create galleries (here as at enwiki) of road signs per country. Some are normal, others are on invented countries: Badziki, Hotsapore, Dozec, Rafid. Some normal galleries (as the one of Kuwait) have signs of other countries. Anon uses to write in the edi summary things as categories have been checked!, Roadwork signs are added!, Oh yeah!, Category has changed, Clean etc... Suddenly he uses the exclamation mark. Also the file uploaded may be checked, sometimes are low resolution copies or fantasies. For example: Are the File:Stop-sign.gif and File:Rg6.gif (uploaded by Dodomen) road signs used in New Zealand? Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


206.176.100.20

Pending

cklick and click.

79.185.212.119

Resolved
Note: User appeared yesterday as Skibiński and was indefinitely blocked by Odder. All contribs of anons and Skibiński have been deleted (apart this one). I think this report may be considered as resolved. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Iugrehc

Resolved

Tsca

Resolved

club is not free and also photographs of it. --Michael Metzger (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And I explained the tag removal on your talk page, along with suggesting the 'deletion request' route. You don't seriously believe your 'speedy deletion' tags are untouchable and not subject to discussion, do you? tsca (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that Tsca's actions were correct -- he removed two speedy deletion tags because he disagreed with the tag and left a note on User talk:Michael Metzger suggesting that a DR was the correct route. Speedy deletions are reserved for "the most obvious cases", so that removing the tags and suggesting a DR was correct and certainly not vandalism.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Marciart

Resolved
Diffs: [36] [37] [38] [39]. Also this ip [40] shows same behaviour.

P secret

Resolved

Bulka_UA

Resolved

This problem was personal attack from one of sockpuppets of Bulka_UA to user Ahonc.
User Bulka UA has received the warning about self behavior (socks and edit war). Next time he will be blocked. -- George Chernilevsky talk 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bulka UA blocked now. Edit warring after warnings again, personal conflict and using sockpuppets in conflict. Some conflicts was before -- George Chernilevsky talk 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

TheEditor13445 and UsefulInformation1324

Resolved

Sock accounts of Imnotatroll123 which is uploading vandalistic images. I have blocked them on enwiki for their abuse of the page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Both accounts are now globally locked, along with four others. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Both accounts are now locally blocked as well by MarcoAurelio. Logan Talk Contributions 02:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Victor_candel

see edits of Special:Contributions/Victor_candel--Motopark (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. blocked for 1 day, a user should explain to them what they did wrong in Spanish.  ■ MMXX  talk 16:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I gave a quick one-sentence remark in Spanish on what was obvious to me (that you don't go messing with the templates). Someone is welcome to expand on that. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Nakaz 0078-42 (1944).jpg

Resolved

Anonymous user returns false information to file description again and again. Please stop this. Thank you. --KVK2005 (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly edit warring which is wrong. However I failed to see that we can be sure this is freely licensed. It is a scan of a book - which is unknown - I can't see those two statement are compatible? The author's name does not appear in a google search either? --Herby talk thyme 10:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not an actual order of the USSR government (for this there is PD-RU-exempt anyway). This is a scan of a Nazi flyer, dropped in mass at the summer of 1944 before leaving the occupied territories of Ukraine. There are not any doubts about it either in Russia or Ukraine. So the question comes to: what Commons license (if any) would be appropriate for a German Nazi flyer, first published June 1944? --Neolexx (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It isn's scan, but shortened text of flyer. --KVK2005 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I still think it is OK now. There are multiple people involved in "production" of this file: (1) German Government that created the original (we have {tl|PD-GermanGov}} for that), (2) Book author that retyped the text into the book ( I do not think that can be copyrighted) (3) Whoever scanned or photographed the book ( I do not think that can be copyrighted either and we can add {{PD-scan}} if needed). KVK2005, I could not figure out if you are concerned about accuracy of the license or description. --Jarekt (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, you've convinced me. Thank you. --KVK2005 (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I replaced {{PD-old}} with {{PD-GermanGov}}. --Jarekt (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

98.88.92.10

Pending
  • User: 98.88.92.10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
  • Reasons for reporting: I do suspect non-constructive actions of this anonymous user. It was reported by uploader w:ru:Участник:Vade Parvis that this user places mass deletion requests under bizzare reasons. A quick check of the first image affected File:Clay with extremely rare half track Land Rover at Camp Cooke.JPG is indeed vandalized by a wrong deletion request. Please do not act on the deletion requests including the speedy one of this user until the situation is fully clarified. Neolexx (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • image was stolen from the private site where it is stated that "Follow the links below to see pictures from my tour and pictures submitted by friends." Nowhere on the site it is stated that these pictures were taken by the US Government as uploader claims. 98.88.92.10 23:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If you decided to quote, you may want to start from the beginning: "I have myself returned from Iraq where I had the honour of serving as an Infantryman with the Ghost Battalion of Garry Owen 2-7 Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division." And PD-USGov-Military-Army says "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties." If you insist that "my tour" has to be understood here as "my leisure time tour" or "my fun trip" or similar then I remain speechless and I'll better wait for Commons admins' decision. --Neolexx (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I infer that you are infering- wrongly, that this particular image has a PD status. There is nothing there to suggest that. Anybody could have taken that photo. In fact i suggest you and your friends stop uploading pictures with questionable status, as they are likely to be deleted anyways. I much prefer when the uploader actually upload his or her own works, rather then stealing them from private sites whihout requesting permission from their owners. Thank you for understanding!98.88.92.10 01:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
          • RE:PD status. As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Mudin.jpg any images shot by US military personnel are considered PD-USGov. The image in question was shot in Camp Cooke, Iraq. Likelyness it was shot by a civilian, not employed by the US = Zero. --Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
            • So what you saying that you admit to the fact that you dont know who took the photo but you still insist that it could not be a person who is NOT US-military personnel. And you base your assumption on the fact that it was made in the Camp Cooke. i suppose a civilian working or visiting the place could not possible take a snapshot... right... Bottom like is what you are saying is assumption and not a fact (fact is that the image is property of the site owner).98.88.100.52 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
              • The PD-USGov does, of course, include non-military personal of the US Army. Try to think how likely it is, that a totally uninvolved person enters the US camp and takes this shot. --Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
        • For the record, I never contacted or even knew about user Vade Parvis until about 1 hour ago, when he came panicking to the ruWiki copyright forum and I happened to be the only one sleepless that time in Russia at that forum. I do consider your particular actions questioned in this thread (from my personal experience in the project) as being far away from what would be called "productive" in any mean "productive" could be stretched in application to the Wikimedia. You obviously may have a contrary idea about this particular activity. For a better neutrality I will refrain from any further communication with you in this thread. As the affected contributor Vade Parvis claimed in his post to have zero level of knowledge of English, I may act (if it comes to) as a translator of his posts in this thread, clearly marking each such case and leaving the Russian original intact. Have a nice day and thank you. --Neolexx (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I am sorry i have offended with my actions. Please explain your new fried that if he wants to use Commons he will need to follow the rules of this institution. Failure to do so will lead to all his files likely deleted.98.88.92.10 01:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For reference: later with another ip (98.88.100.52) were put up for deletion five more loaded by me photos of ancient military equipment and AFV-s, as well as (after the mention on this topic of the inaccuracy of the mass removal of articles uploaded by only one user) the two photos of ancient AFV-s downloaded by other user from the Russian Wikipedia. Sorry for my bad English. Vade Parvis (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • To summarize the current claim, a participant of the Russian Wikipedia Vikiped was recently blocked for 3 days for numerous civility code violations where a Commons contributor and a productive participant Vade Parvis was one of attacked sides.
  • This block for similar violations is not the first for Vikiped. Earlier it was confirmed that he used an IP in 98.88.x.x range to bypass the block. The address range 98.88.0.0—98.88.255.255 is blocked for pinging behind the router. With a non-zero probability it might be speculated that a single participant is on full/partial control of a part of network assigned to the Roswell High School and using this control to anonymously bypass blocking and to initiate bulk deletion requests under dynamic IP's in the above mentioned range. --Neolexx (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My russian is like your english - is not so good. But be that as it may i would like to think that you guys instead of chasing your own tail trying to besmirch users in the wikipedia commons with your Russian ways, talking about "non-zero probability " "full/partial control of a part of network assigned " and so on and so on, should focus on not uploading files without having proper documentation to prove the PD status. Also i dont know why you are dragging your feuds here in the forum. You need to resolve whatever issues you have with your accounts first and then talk about various unrelated issues you might have with your friends and business associates from the Roswell high school. Perheps you kids should play nice in that High school of yours and do not get in fights with other kids there, especcially if you all cant focus on keeping your accounts in order here on the commons. 98.88.100.52 17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I would also like to note that, contrary to statements made by anonymous, my PD justification are not something out of the ordinary — they are quite common and widely accepted in the Commons. In fact, almost all of the images of armored vehicles, that were not made ​​by users themselves and were not provided by large libraries, has completely similar justification — so all these hundreds of files uploaded by different users at different times, according to the nominator's logic also should be removed from for alleged violations. Vade Parvis (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you should be less concerned with "hundrends of files" and more with files YOU are uploading. So far you are not helping us at all with your statements, regarding your high school activities. Schoolyard bully act in this forum, is not gonna help your cause. In fact more you are trying to intimidate the community HERE with your references to your "Russian connections" and intimate knowledge of the high school politics, the less inclined i am to see you as aasset to the community. You are uploading files that you "claim" to be PD but instead of providing documentation you are and your "comrads" here are acting as famed "KGB" cadres, trying to terrorise folks in to submission with innuendo and veiled threats. Are you planning to "take up" this matter in your Roswell high school too? You claim to know "whom to get" there for inconveniencing you and your gang here. Is that right? Seriously what is that gonna acomplish? Explain this to me! 98.88.100.52 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 Comment I do not like the tone of this discussion. There seem to be a lot of insinuations and hints, with statements like "you kids should play nice in that High school of yours" etc. It is also not OK to be making jokes about other people's English skills, since many of us are not that good at it. As for Neolexx original complain about the possibility that 98.88.92.10 ( who night be ru:User:Vikiped) is using Commons Deletion Request to harass User:Vade Parvis as a continuation of some feud. I think it is very likely, however, it is also very common, see for example all the deletion of files uploaded by User:Fæ filed by User:Pieter Kuiper in the last week. Unfortunately, the best defense against that is to upload only images with easily verifiable licenses; otherwise you have to defend each file separately. In case of User:Vade Parvis uploads, the license status is not always clear.

Although I do not like people using Deletion Request as a punishment, I share 98.88.92.10 uneasiness about the licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

    • File:Marmon-Herrington_DHT-5.jpg — US experimental armored car shall be tested by Marmon Herrington only in 1940 and almost immediately was rejected and never even offered to the army.
    • File:125_mm_ampoule_thrower_test_01.jpg — created by unknown soviet army photographer on the test poligon, and taken from the archives. Vade Parvis (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • File:BA-22_APC_left.jpg, File:BA-22_APC_rear.jpg. The link leads not to the "personal website", but to the page with illustrations of digitized version of book (the book is also available on the same site [41]), that is one of the sources of information about the car in the article about her. Experimental Soviet machine BA-22 was created in 1938-1939 in single exemplar, was tested in 1939 and was rejected. These photos are a standard way for Soviet experimental machines and were made by an unknown photographer in the Soviet Army Proving Ground during the state test, was published immediately and were shown to various authorities with the technical documentation, reports, etc., then at least one copy of the photo was sent to the State Archives and preserved to this day.
    • File:SU-4_01.jpg — Similarly to the previous item, but was tested in 1934. Case of letters in the source url has changed, fixed.
    • File:Somua-Coder_armoured_bridgelayer_02.jpg — French experimental machine built in a single exemplar and tested in 1938-1940, about its further fate is not any information in any of the sources, and it just has not been tested more (it is clear that she, like many other these machines had been destroyed during the Nazi invasion).
    • File:Linn_C5_Catruck_01.jpg — machine during the state tests on the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Even if the information in the book is not completely accurate, this machine purchased in small quantities only be US Navy.
    • The machine was created in 1928, it passed the test fails, it almost immediately was de-armoured and the designer did not return to this theme.
    • I always try to the greatest extent possible, check the photos PD, and load them only when it is obvious. From Russia with love — Russian barbarian, who, of course, all the cheating, Vade Parvis (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC) =)
Unfortunately, a lot of images on Commons have questionable licenses, which sometimes remain unchallenged for years. Someone has to be continuously finding and tagging such images. Especially old photographs with rarely used licenses are often not scrutinized as much. However once copyright status is challenged (no matter why some set of images was chosen for closer examination), the argument about other images having similar issues, is not very useful. You can nominate the images for deletion, and I asure you that they will be treated the same way your images are. --Jarekt (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Problems with the descriptions are clear, have already been corrected, as far as possible — please view results. For Russian experimental armored vehicles and weapons see comment of user Askold Ingvarssen (Аскольд):[42]. Vade Parvis (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Anonymous has also put up at the removal one of the files downloaded by the user Sae — in the past also an object of aggression by the user Vikiped in the Russian section. Vade Parvis (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I just noticed that the anonymous author, it turns out, was nominated for deletion even the free (CC-BY-2.0) image that been uploaded by me to the Wikicommons from Flickr and which has already passed (which, of course, already kept). Anonymous used their standard copy-paste reason: «Taken from the private site. Copyright protected. No evidence of PD status». Really, it's quite obvious vandalism. Vade Parvis (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    •  Comment no, it's not that clear. These deletion requests are not "vandalism"), see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:SUPER HEROE SALSITSA.jpg where the given reasoning was ok, and the image was deleted (a speedy tag would have been better in that case though) --:bdk: 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I remember the sausage =) But it's just a case of senseless images, and the reason was specified corresponding to — and in the case of the half-track truck anonymous said copyrighted image that was actually uploaded by the author under a free license. That is, (s)he deliberately created a fake nomination. Vade Parvis (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
        • well, this one flickr image (kept by me) could have been a copy&paste mistake by the IP user (the likeliness that is was an intentional "fake" is pretty low). The obvious problem here is that the IP contributions are neither "vandalism only", nor "generally helpful" (rather someting in between). And the other, more serious problem is that not all of your uploads have proper sources/licenses. – The second problem is the one you can fix and should take care of in the future (advice: please don't upload images with unclear copyright status, especially don't claim "public domain" if there's no specific and valid rationale). --:bdk: 00:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I see my mistakes in the descriptions of some files, and now corrected gradually, but nevertheless, I do not think they are critical and I think that where it would be constructive just ask me to clarify the description of the file where it is a problem, but do not start randomly deleting them , citing justification say nothing removal. Later in more detail accomplish your goal in this regard. Specifically, the following nominations: for example, the license status of photos of experimental Soviet armored car BAD-1 of interwar decades are quite clear (see files descriptions) — but an anonymous randomly put half of photos to deletion with their standard copy-paste justification (although the other half was made at the same time and even in the same place). Or another example: anonymous nominated for deletion (with the standard justifications) all the pictures of the Clayton tractor model 1916 downloaded be me, although three of them indicating as the source post in the authoritative technical portal, which the author explicitly stated that digitized photographs from the The Ingeneer magazine number, published in 1917, the creating period of the fourth photography (the first half of XX century) and the anonymity of its author is also very clear (The only problem of this 4 files was — incidentally, not mentioned in the anonymous nominations — license PD-Old instead of the recommended PD-UK-unknown), and the fifth photo depicts machine of Russian White Army, which was photographed in 1919 and published in 1920 in the "Броневое дело" (Armor craft) magazine — with reference to the book from which it was taken, and the additional on-line source, which also contains this information (now only leftthe reference to book with added a link to a digitized with the authors'agreement version of article from this book). Vade Parvis (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I went over the sources and thirst one (File:1916 Clayton & Shuttleworth tractor 04.jpg) states: "Here is my great uncle. Not sure if its world war I or world war II..." Seriously? Thats your proof of PD status? You were not kidding earlier about "russian barbarian and all about cheating". But i dont find that very funny though. I wonder at this point if i should nominate your entire works for deletion since you are not actively cooperating with inquiry.98.88.54.247 05:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment "For a protocol": Anonymous, among others, now is not shy of outright falsehood: [43], [44]. These sources is easily verifiable and information from them can be further validated by different users. Vade Parvis (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I am glad you english is improving! Supposedly you did not speak any so you had your buddies stepping up to help you out in your struggle angainst the "man". I am not sure what for the "For a protocol" means in russian but it has nothing much to do with this inquiry. You see you are constantly trying to introduce your native approach to solving your legal(i.e. rules of the wikipedia commons) problens. You try to denounce your neigbours. So besides your latest claim that your outright lies ([(http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Linn_T6.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=65303718)]) are not lies becouse your buddies here were lying at your behest, what can YOU offer this inquiry?98.88.54.247 14:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
98.88.54.247 I am getting really tired of your stream of insults and accusations aimed at other users. This "inquiry" is about "non-constructive actions of [] anonymous user" (you). I do not have a problem with you DRs but you (98.88 range) will be blocked for "creating a hostile environment for another user" if you continue referring to User:Vade Parvis this way. --Jarekt (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I also find these numerous deletion requests excessive. Most of these files have a source and an appropriate license, and the anonymous use gives no explaination against that. And see Commons:Deletion requests/File:1242214083 stargate sg-1 ser9.jpg. It seems that the anonymous is User:Дмитрий Александрович. Yann (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive_4&oldid=358265956"