Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 6

AladegbaiyeMotives

Resolved

• User: AladegbaiyeMotives (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Self-promotional only account. User (see contribs) is filling Commons of images of himself as prince, doctor etc... Btw, this files, mainly that sort of "royal arms" sound like hoaxes. Crosswiki vandal also, due to this (en.wp talk page). --Dэя-Бøяg 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Images nuked, user blocked. INeverCry 01:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well done, thanks :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 01:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Cenedlaetholwr Cymreig

Resolved

• User: Cenedlaetholwr Cymreig (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: vandalism 21.04.2013

4028mdk09 (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bhumihar brahmin

Pending

• User: Bhumihar brahmin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Has uploaded many copyvio images, picking from other websites. Has also uploaded same images, after deletion, under different names.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Images nuked, blocked 1 week. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE : The user has possibly created another account by the name User:Bhumihar brahmin2 and (re-)uploaded many of the files. Please take care. Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rahul; i was just here to report that.
Also, please don't nuke all the images. The new user has uploaded File:Troops on parade in front of the Lal Darwaza at the fort and palace of the Maharaja of varansi.jpg, File:Elephants for military purpose at hathuwa raaj.jpg and File:Bettiah raaj fort.jpg are all PD and were thus cleaned by me when they were uploaded for first time. Could those originals be restored back? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that they are PD? There is no information on date. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha refers to:

• File:Laldauraza banares333.jpg (undeleted by me, actually turns out to be a dupe of File:Laldaruaza (Ramnagar) -Benares-..jpg anyway)
• File:Elepahants for military purpose hathwa raaj.jpg (undeleted by me, maybe PD on account of being taken (and presumably copyrighted/published) by Johnston & Hoffman, but the description is wrong)
• File:Bettiah raaj fort.jpg (reuploaded with same filename, Dharmadhyaksha seems not to have touched this one, though, judging by the deleted version)

The license didn't look right to me, thought; I updated the first one which now seems more solid in the absence of a death date for the photographer –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

All uploads by User:Bhumihar brahmin2 nuked, except File:Bettiah raaj fort.jpg –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

VitorAzBine

ResolvedBlocked for 1 week, deleted most uploads (phony OTRS claims). Materialscientist (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• User: VitorAzBine (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user continues uploading copyrighted material, even after having received several (file) warnings. --Leyo 07:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sock User:VitorBinelli indeffed, uploads deleted –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexia Nelson

Resolved

• User: Alexia Nelson (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user continues uploading copyrighted material, even after having received several (file) warnings.

SamuelFreli (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Thank you for reporting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

the Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard spam-vandal

Resolved

As most are already aware, since March the OTRS/Noticeboard [1] is persistantly — though with moderate frequency — attacked by a vandal, who replaces the total board content by a short rather meaningless looking message and even takes the pain to add a similar meaningless edit-summary. Though it's unclear to me whether it is merely vandalism or also a sort of attempted spam, I've now hidden the content and edit-summary for all his edits. In order to ease measure to be taken by CU or WMF (ToS violation), I've listed the involved IPs below:

• 222.77.192.253 (talk · contribs)
• 120.33.197.239 (talk · contribs)
• 120.33.196.44 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.152.247 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.153.226 (talk · contribs)
• 222.77.192.253 (talk · contribs)
• 46.118.116.88 (talk · contribs)
• 120.33.197.120 (talk · contribs)
• 222.77.209.19 (talk · contribs)
• 222.77.193.14 (talk · contribs)
• 222.77.209.220 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.152.200 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.152.200 (talk · contribs)
• 222.77.192.216 (talk · contribs)
• 222.77.192.155 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.152.46 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.152.66 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.153.150 (talk · contribs)
• 222.77.211.238 (talk · contribs)
• 125.78.204.218 (talk · contribs)
• 120.33.197.88 (talk · contribs)
• 125.78.205.202 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.153.229 (talk · contribs)
• 176.36.55.14 (talk · contribs)
• 125.78.205.110 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.153.162 (talk · contribs)
• 125.78.204.8 (talk · contribs)
• 125.78.204.49 (talk · contribs)
• 120.33.197.30 (talk · contribs)

--Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• 110.82.153.106 (talk · contribs)
• 110.82.152.82 (talk · contribs)

–⁠moogsi (blah) 11:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a reason the page hasn't been protected (auto-confirmed) while this is sorted put? Эlcobbola _talk 11:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the page is also legitimately used by IPs and the current vandalism is detected rather early, so it doesn't result in disrupting the page's function. --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's true of most vandalism. The germane disruption is the time and effort to revert, rev-edit, and block. The ratio of vandalism to legitimate use was 3:1 in April. Would it be genuinely disruptive to have IPs use the talk page until this is sorted? Эlcobbola _talk 12:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. But that's a question for the OTRS volunteers which I am not. --Túrelio (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we need a Abuse Filter.--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooops (or otherwise). I protected the page a little earlier (sprot) with the comment that I would prefer not to. They tend to be caught by the filter but currently that is not set to disallow. The IPs can be blocked happily (my default is either 2 weeks or a month depending what I discover about them). They are actually bot edits anyway. If anyone wants to change my protection that is fine - they will find other targets anyway (indeed they do anyway and I sprot'd another earlier too). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have created Special:AbuseFilter/115 (the filter stops page blanking by ips). I have removed the protection of the Noticeboard (feel free to revert my edits, if you disagree ;-))--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Great and thanks (over night I'd come to roughly the same conclusion!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 05:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Aztec Empire (orthographic projection)

• User: Sémhur (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and El Comandante (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: These users have been uploading a version with a doubtful source without any verification, no page, and without a previous discussion on talk page after the user keepscases uploaded this map on 10 January 2010. Now R3R with these users, what should I do?, I suggested to Sémhur to upload another map with his "doubtful source without page" or something because there are reliable sources about the first map on internet, otherwise I couldn't see a previous discussion on talk page before his "updating" as if he owned the map. Thank you. --Giggette (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

All discussions are there. Giggette can't provide any reliable source to support the initial version. The one Semhur and I support has been created on the basis of a reliable source. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 23:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please consider that Giggette doesn't want to be reasonable, and that this edition war seems to have begun with a conflict with Yavidaxiu on Spanish Wikipedia. One more for Giggette, who also had the same kind of problems in EN and FR with local experts of Mesoamerica Maunus and Michel wal. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please consider that Giggette is extending this conflict to multiple Wikipedias (cf. where and EN administrators response). El ComandanteHasta ∞ 22:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And now Giggette is pretending that her map is not an alternative version of Semhur's, creating another edit war. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 07:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh lord. --Giggette (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that all Mesoamerica local experts on EN support Sémhur orthographic map, and not Giggette's (cf. [2]). El ComandanteHasta ∞ 06:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So what?, congratulations so then use Sémhur orthographic map in EN Wikipedia. --Giggette (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And now Giggette is banning reliable informations from his map's page... I don't want to keep on losing my time with another edit war, so please do something. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 19:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well this is not an encyclopedia, EN Wikipedia preference is not a reason to replace it on COMMONS. If you do not agree with this version is no reason to replace it with yours, that map was created according reliable source. Best regards. --Giggette (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd protect that page and reverted to the revision before edit warring. Please reach consensus on the talk page.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it a joke? You deleted more reliable informations than Giggette! Moreover, everybody on EN, on ES and on FR protest against Giggette's incapacity to discuss and to argue, and now you want me to lose all my time arguing with her? No, I won't. I can't discuss alone with someone that doesn't want to discuss. She said "OK" to Maunus when he told that he thinks that Giggette's map should be substituted by Sémhur's because Sémhur's is much more reliable. But she doesn't want to undo all her POV pushing on multiple Wikipedias and she doesn't want to let publish the {{Superseded}} template to her map's page (and the arguments that prove it). She's obviously not sincere. If you don't want to assume your responsibility, then I won't assume mine neither. Too bad for Commons and Wikipedias' users if POV pushers can ban reliable informations. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 21:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Because of your way to manage this POV pushing, now Giggette feels exhilarated, and is beginning another edit war to support her poorly documented map criticized by everybody everywhere, and another edit war against other Yavidaxiu's map, to continue her revenge against him. It's pathetic. El ComandanteHasta ∞ 17:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked Giggette already a few days ago because of that.--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Enjoy your time here on Commons, and Assume good faith.--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And what about Yavidaxiu's map? I've reverted Giggette's revert, to preserve the color normalization of the category. And what about Giggette's global POV pushing on multiple Wikipedias? And what about Giggette's ownership of "her" map's page? Shall we let her do whatever she wants, even ban reliable informations (like this map has been considered superseded by everybody except Giggette, on the basis of reliable sources, on EN and on Commons) and publish disinformation (like it's a valid SVG created by the french graphic lab)? Is that your way to manage problems here, letting vandals do whatever they want to avoid troubles? El ComandanteHasta ∞ 13:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

imho done. But if you think this problem is not resolved i accept this. I hav removed the resolved template. Greetings--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yanniconcert09

Resolved

• User: Yanniconcert09 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Uploading attack images and vandalizing enwiki with sockpuppets.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User warned (Immediately stop uploading copyright violations).--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@Admins: feel free to block Yanniconcert09.--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

IP vandal

Resolved

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.73.99.22 Do they need warnings here like en:wp? Three edits, all bad.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

only three edits, zero edits since 2 May. Imho no need to block this ip now.--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Milijar

Resolved

Milijar (talk · contribs) is overwriting files with different images repeatedly (see discussion). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 06:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And again: File:Vignette-Montenegro.jpg. Please block user. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 06:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Thank you for reporting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jigarrynorea

He doesn't seem to have made constructive contributions; I've blocked him on Wikidata, and also reported him at Meta-Wiki. --Ricordisamoa 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

All images were deleted as copyvio. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Another: Special:Contributions/Kabupatentolikarapapuabarat (Tolikara Papua Indonesia!) --Ricordisamoa 23:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User has been warned. Any further non-constructive contributions should result in an indef block as a vandalism only account. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Ricordisamoa 13:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Another: Komunitastolikara! --Ricordisamoa 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to automatically prevent registration of user names containing "tolikara"? Or at least a "global abuse filter" to block "tolikara papua indonesia" edits? --Ricordisamoa 08:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

rfc IP95.97.183.226-vandal

95.97.183.226 (talk · contribs) seems[3] to be a vandalism-only "account" using always the same IP, at least since starting his vandal-activity on March 19th until today. Contrary to our procedure with fly-by-vandal IPs, in this case a perma-ban/block might be justified, also because it's not simple vandalism, but often grossly insulting[4]. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps true as the reverse DNS lookup had static.chello.nl as a result; but I am not that experienced in this matter. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematic upload

An image uploaded by User:RJJLO (see Special:ListFiles/RJJLO) depicts an underage penis. Please delete the image. --Wylve (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Jrd222.png

Uploaded by serial vandal User:John Daker. Please delete the file and block the sockpuppet account that uploaded it. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki).

File deleted account appears to be globally locked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock uploader User:QQ Madness. INeverCry 19:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

144.183.224.2

• User: 144.183.224.2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: IP is at it again; two more edits, pure vandalism: here and here.

– Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 01:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done 1 week. It's his second lock, static ip. --Alan ^(talk) 03:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

John Daker again

I think the author is already globally blocked, but please delete File:Brokethebuild.jpg , used for vandalizing en.wiki. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

 Done INeverCry 01:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Ichhassejuden

Translate the username from german to english: I hate jews

Translate the talk - google-translate. Please delete the user --217.246.193.159 14:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User blocked, page deleted. --Didym (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

194.120.136.250

Resolved

• User: 194.120.136.250 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Repeated vandalism on File:MAX, studio 23.jpg, as this user did in November, February and March

Apdency (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Some enemy in the Netherlands?[16] 2 weeks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha, Andreas College, Katwijk. Thanks for resolving. Apdency 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

142.0.136.29

Resolved

• User: 142.0.136.29 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Creating talk pages with repeated nonsense/random phrase output, and 5-letter random strings as edit summaries. Some pages have already been deleted. I don't know if it's normal to block this quickly, but this is probably a bot that will not pay attention to warnings, and probably a test for later spamming. --Closeapple (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

17:10, 28 May 2013 DerHexer globally blocked User:142.0.136.29 (expires 2013-05-29T17:10:14) (Cross-wiki vandalism)--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

EnedinHoxha

Resolved

• User: EnedinHoxha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Another entry for Category:Sockpuppets of RealMadridCF2012 Again he tries to create fake articles about a "prominent" person with the same name (in de.wp already blocked as de:Benutzer:EnedinHoxha )

93.209.89.35 22:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. INeverCry 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lord-dr3a

Resolved

• User: Lord-dr3a (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Uploading copyrighted images as "own work". feydey ^(talk) 08:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Nuked. Blocked 1 day by Túrelio. --Alan ^(talk) 14:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Sebastian1203

Pending

• User: Sebastian1203 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: uploads low quality penis and penis-related pics after warning.

Isderion (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

big joke that nobody is doing anything and the user continued to upload his shit. --Isderion (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

83.96.144.17 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I've indef-blocked this IP, as all its edits[17] over span of 2 years were of the same kind of harrassment of 2 other users. I assume therefore that it is a static IP, though I wasn't able to check that, as the formerly available tools are no longer shown in my browser (Chrome). --Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/83.96.144.17 Assignment: Static IP --Alan ^(talk) 13:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Qing Dynasty Dish with dragons.jpg

Resolved

Dear Administrators,

My file was deleted from commons without any reason/rationale by User:INeverCry, how can I retrive it? especially the description of this file. Is this acceptable?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Qing_Dynasty_Dish_with_dragons.jpg

BurgererSF (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

INeverCry's actuation is right per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qing Dynasty Dish with dragons.jpg (+7 days in request without oppose).

Undeleted by Fastily. --Alan ^(talk) 02:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Valencian

Resolved

• User: Valencian (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user is removing the Catalan language Template and adding 'Valencian' (which is not consider as an independent language neither by the academics nor by the 'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua', which is the official institution regulating the standards of Valencian in the Land of Valencia). He/She is also removing all articles about the Land of Valencia from the corresponding linguistic parent category, which groups all Catalan-speaking territories (independently of their administrative status).

Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Albert.

Valencian is an official language.

Constitución Española, art 3.2:

Las demás lenguas españolas serán también oficiales en las respectivas Comunidades Autónomas de acuerdo con sus Estatutos.

Estatuto de autonomía de la comunidad Valenciana (art. 7).

Artículo 7

1. Los dos idiomas oficiales de la Comunidad Autónoma son el valenciano y el castellano. Todos tienen derecho a conocerlos y usarlos.

2. La Generalidad Valenciana garantizará el uso normal y oficial de las dos lenguas y adoptará las medidas necesarias para asegurar su conocimiento.

3. Nadie podrá ser discriminado por razón de su lengua.

4. Se otorgará especial protección y respeto a la recuperación del valenciano.

5. La ley establecerá los criterios de aplicación de la lengua propia en la Administración y en la enseñanza.

6. Mediante ley se delimitarán los territorios en los que predomine el uso de una y otra lengua, así como los que puedan exceptuarse de la enseñanza y del uso de la lengua propia de la Comunidad.

All official languages in Spain are listed here: voy:es:España#Lenguas cooficiales en sus respectivas comunidades autónomas. --Alan ^(talk) 02:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, --Alan ^(talk) 02:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: If you like, you may write using Spanish. / Si lo prefieres, puedes escribir utilizando el español. --Alan ^(talk) 02:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe I have to give these basic clarifications. All the explanation are in the entry Catalan language of the English wikipedia. Valencian is not a different language from Catalan. Valencian is the name given to different Catalan variants that are spoken in the Land of Valencia. This is completely clear not only from the linguistic point of view (where there is a wide consensus about this), but also from the legal point of view. Despite the efforts of the Valencian regional government in trying to impose the Valencian as a different language form Catalan, there exist at least one sentence from the Constituional Court (STC 75/1997) and even more from the Major Tribunal of Justice of the Valencian Region that claim that the Valencian is a variant of the Catalan language.

See en:Valencian language controversy

--Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Alan. I have just discovered that in order to reinforce your claim, you have only cited Wikivoyages, which is the only place in all wikimedia projects where Valencian appears as a different language from Catalan! You can also read all the other wikimedia projects, where Valencian appears as the name given to the Catalan language in the Land of Valencia (e.g., in the Spanish wikipedia es:España#Lenguas, they say: Catalán ... Oficialmente se denomina Valenciano en la Comunidad Valenciana, donde también es cooficial.). --Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Albert. This matter is very complicated. If you like discuss about Spanish laguages use Commons:Café and I'll be delighted to state my opinion.

Valencian (talk · contribs) user is inactive since +15 days. If he returns to doing changes (edit war) please notify here again. --Alan ^(talk) 21:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

RonaldoLand237

Resolved

• User: RonaldoLand237 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Persistent copyvio uploads.. feydey ^(talk) 09:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles.bonsu3

Resolved

• User: Charles.bonsu3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Overwriting files, adding nonsense, warned. feydey ^(talk) 20:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. INeverCry 21:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Guild 2013

Resolved

• User: The Guild 2013 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued uploads of copyrighted artworks as "own work". All previous uploads copyvios/no permission. feydey ^(talk) 07:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked--Steinsplitter (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

193.106.108.104

Resolved

• User: 193.106.108.104 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Repeated vandalism despite warnings and being blocked 3 times already. Thanks.

—Bruce1ee^talk 07:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Saurom Lamderth

Resolved

• User: Saurom Lamderth (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user has plagiarized many images in the last days that have been deleted. He has been warned several times, but he continues plagiarizing images of Internet. I detected more images of him plagiarized but it's possible that others will be too.

Sonsaz (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've given the user a formal warning. If the copyvio uploads continue, he can/will be blocked. INeverCry 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

186.85.216.180

Resolved

• User: 186.85.216.180 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandalizing multiple user talk pages.

Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 21:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bearpark

Resolved

• User: Bearpark (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: User:Bearpark submitted some requests for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Water mold Mizukabi colony.jpg, etc.). But these requests are retaliation for ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼/Bearpark (RfB against ja:user:Bearpark) that conclueded indefinitely block on ja:user:Bearpark. See also User_talk:Bearpark and each requests. He/She is crosswiki vandalist because of his/her disruptive conducts.--ikedat76 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is the right venue. I don't believe submitting a handful deletion requests, which might appear questionable, counts as COM:V. If the behavior continues and/or gets escalated, I would advise to bring it into COM:ANU. --whym (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Dddddddddsssd

Resolved

• User: Dddddddddsssd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Sockpuppet of banned User:Jude Enemy on en.wiki, using images for his usual pattern of posting articles about his fictional career as a rap star. Please block user and delete/salt images. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

NawlinWiki (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• •  Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikinger attack

Just for the record: in the last hour we suffered a massive multi-IP vandalism-attack by the well-known Wikinger vandal/troll, which included sort-of death-threats against his perceived enemy, an :en admin colleague. All edits (>120) were rolled-back and most also hidden.

• 67.192.46.6
• 67.192.46.7
• 67.192.46.8
• 67.192.46.9
• 67.192.46.10
• 67.192.46.11
• 67.192.46.12
• 67.192.46.13
• 67.192.46.14

--Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

142.0.137.145

Resolved

• User: 142.0.137.145 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: creating spam pages across different wikis

Perditax (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Globally blocked for 3 days. Trijnstel_talk 15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Uilly-Williams

Pending

• User: Uilly-Williams (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Mr. Uilly-Williams is jawp-user. Now blocking-request for him is being discussed in jawp. And then he was blocked indefinite-period tentatively. In retaliation, he wrote defamatory remarks in his user-page in commons, and he linked it to jawp.--Ashtray (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

（by Japanese-Lang: Uilly-Williams氏はウィキペディア日本語版のユーザーです。現在、彼に対するブロック依頼が審議中であり、彼は暫定的に無期限ブロックされました。その報復として、彼はコモンズのユーザーページに中傷書き込みをし、それを日本語ウィキペディアにリンクしています。）--Ashtray (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

David Steven

Resolved

• User: David Steven (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandalismo en File:Mapa Colombia Antiguo.jpg, la imagen es clara violación de Copyright (Copyright violation) Chico512 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved --Alan ^(talk) 15:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lamda không

Pending

• User: Lamda không (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: He/she upload 4 valdalism image to Commons as a new version to existing image. One of them is in the Vietnamese Wikipedia main page. I have reverted them.

Valdalism revision:

• File:President Elbegdorj Tsakhia.jpg (revision 14:01, 29 June 2013)
• File:Emmanuel Adebayor.jpg (revision 13:52, 29 June 2013)
• File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpg (revision 13:50, 29 June 2013)
• File:Apple iPhone 2G 8GB (15).jpg (revision 13:48, 29 June 2013)

Please ban him/her (Lamda is banned on viwiki) and delete all of the revision above. Tuankiet65 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandal-versions deleted and user blocked for 1 month. --Túrelio (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Anmy

Resolved

• User: Anmy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Promo-only account. See The files he/she is uploading and their usage in the article Red atrapa sismos and es:Red Atrapa Sismos (RAS) (candidated for speedy deletion). --Dэя-Бøяg 00:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked —Mono 01:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

JCERecords

Resolved

• User: JCERecords (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Self-promotional only spammer: See Jce records and Just Rich Gates. Anyway, inappropriate user name. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked —Mono 01:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Grg vdf

Resolved

• User: Grg vdf (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandal-only account. See It'z Dudu Giirl, a nonsense vandalism and the related picture. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked —Mono 01:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Franchm

Resolved

• User: Franchm (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Self-promotional only spammer: See Dan Masciarelli, the related file and es:Dan Masciarelli (candidated for speedy deletion by me and now deleted, author is the same). --Dэя-Бøяg 00:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done —Mono 01:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

HBD20

Resolved

• User: HBD20 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Insulted me (in german) here.

Excolis (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the comment and warned the user. For the next comment in this way, HBD20 should be blocked. --Didym (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tulijaideep

Resolved

• User: Tulijaideep (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Self-promotional only account, see Jaideep Tuli, the related file. Also active at enwiki, see en:User:Tulijaideep/sandbox (contribs). --Dэя-Бøяg 00:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked —Mono 00:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanx Mono, also for this notice ;-) --Dэя-Бøяg 01:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Martinborrelli

Resolved

• User: Martinborrelli (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Clearly self-promo only account. Some hours ago was still warned after the deletion of User:Martinborrelli, and he created Footboys and Martin Borrelli. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked by INeverCry (see log). --Dэя-Бøяg 01:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ChasSmith123

Resolved

• User: ChasSmith123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Crosswiki vandal-only account (see his contribs at enwiki). Here he uploaded this trolling file for this kind of usage. Anyway he was indef blocked.--Dэя-Бøяg 02:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked --A.Savin 08:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Juanjo acerero

Resolved

• User: Juanjo acerero (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: doesn't stop uploading copyvios, would also suggest nuking his files.

Isderion (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Uploads nuked, user blocked. INeverCry (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Matheus Sousa

ResolvedIndef blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• User: Matheus Sousa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Globally blocked vandal-only account (crosswiki), noticed some hours ago at enwiki and now blocked for creation of various nonsense categories and pages (to troll portuguese admins who blocked him). See also this category, block log at pt.wiki. For further details see the report of Biologo 32 at enwiki. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez 2.0.4

Resolved

• User: Geraldo Perez 2.0.4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandalising with copyvio templates. [18][19]

Asqueladd (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also harassment, creating bogus articles, corrupting existing file descriptions. All edits should be undone and all files created, deleted. Was indef blocked on enwiki for same pattern, moved here to continue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Mukbrain as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The 2 accounts are definitely connected. Both are blocked, and I've range blocked the IP. INeverCry (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Flight AG202

Resolved

• User: Flight AG202 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: John Daker again. Please block user and delete File:Hddpets.jpg, used to vandalize en.wiki. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

NawlinWiki (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Image deleted, acct blocked. INeverCry (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

IP 62.243.130.222

62.243.130.222 (talk · contribs) The contribution of this user is vandalism as we are not a forum. But i couldn't find any proper templated message to drop it on their talk page. Can someone do that or take any other suitable action? Also i suppose all those contributions need to be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done File talk deleted. No need for a block IMHO. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Piotr Grochowski

Resolved

• User: Piotr Grochowski (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: manipulation of deletion discussions [20], and constant overloading of File:Seven segment display-animated.gif. Jahobr (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)}}

I've blocked the user for 1 month for continued edit-warring. It also looks like he continued the vandalism he was blocked for earlier as well. I've full-protected File:Seven segment display-animated.gif from uploading for 3 months to make sure the overwriting doesn't start right back up when the user returns from this 1 month block. If he continues this behavior after returning from this block, perhaps a much longer or indef block would be appropriate. INeverCry 18:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Peeters147

Resolved

• User: Peeters147 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user uploaded, from last year, several pictures with license problems, unlicensed or in copyvio. Absent from April he uploaded this unlicensed pictures (File:Pepa Bolan 01.jpg and File:Pepa Bolan 02.jpg) adding (by himself) the {{Uwlsubst}} in single edits. Some minutes before he created Mandrage (as a sort of Wikipedian mini stub without images). I don't think he's a vandal-only but the continuous upload of files with license problems despite several notices, this last uploads, the creation of an empty gallery... all that, sounds very strange... --Dэя-Бøяg 00:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mista.jpg. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

He has some edits on the Czech wiki. I am not sure if he's a vandal or just, well, doesn't get it. I left a final warning on his talk page. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

File:BR-101 Serra ES.jpg

Please revert to the Flickrreviewed version as the file was overwritten with a copyrighted image from http://gazetaonline.globo.com/_conteudo/2009/11/563066-carreta+tomba+no+viaduto+de+carapina.html (2009, GazetaOnline © 2010, Todos os direitos reservados) = http://gazetaonline.globo.com/_midias/jpg/204810-4afd46914a4d4.jpg. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Meaning that the copyrighted version needs to be deleted. Gunnex (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Identical problem by same user: File:Cmd Geral CBM ES.PNG (please keep only the original version and delete the copyrighted version). Gunnex (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Agente K-8 C

It's a SP of an Italian indefinitely blocked user, his uploads are all fakes and contain false info--Shivanarayana (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If I compare the abstract speeches on privacy and human rights that you may read in community pages like Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry and the fact that a mere vandal/SP/forger can merrily upload videos that have clearly no encyclopedic purpose and depict minors like Category:Benny Spie film, I can only remain astonished. You have very serious problems of content management.--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Both his uploads are filed for deletion now. --Túrelio (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Prev

Resolved

• User: Prev (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Unhelpful edits.

UV (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Test pages deleted. User hasn't edited since, so no block needed yet. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:53, 09 August 2013 (GMT)

Vandalism on my user talk page

Resolved

Hi. Please consider hiding this edit. Thank you. //  Gikü  said  done  Sunday, 4 August 2013 21:21 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And these ones: 101706411 101732809 //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 12 August 2013 06:54 (UTC)

Rev-deleted and warned. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

178.183.151.205

Resolved

• User: 178.183.151.205 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Unexplained removal of categories.

Zeitlupe (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. INeverCry 07:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Smilley face girl

Resolved

• User: Smilley face girl (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: current rash of uploading copyrighted photos found on net and falsely claiming ownership

Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Uploads nuked, user warned. INeverCry 06:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989

Vandilism to this page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_republic_flag_map.png

see the history.GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is some serious disruption going on there. What do you propose should be done about the editor who keeps messing with the categories? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The category says Irredentism for this file , while there is not , i fixed that thing , also note that this file is my work , and it's a historical file that shows syrian map and flag in 1936 , annon revrted my fix and then he sent me a message on my talk page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GhiathArodaki

i answered him , and he didn't revrt it again , anyway , after me and fry had a dispute , he started the vadilism there, see the history of the file.GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm vandalizing the file??? Anonmoos originally added the category Irredentism, which was removed without an explanation by GhiathArodaki. Anonmoos tried to talk to GhiathArodaki on his talk page about it, and the only response he got was "don't skew in our land history, Syria is not yours!". This user is trying to exert control over his uploads as if he owns them. And really Psychonaut?? What should we do with the editor who messes with categories?? First you have to prove I'm actually messing with the categories and not adding a proper one which the uploader disagrees with. You know better then to take things at face value. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

why did you cut the respond ? huh ? , you lier ? , say it from the begining , that what did i say During and After the mandtae until 50s or 40s the Iskandrun was in the syrian map Syrian Republic, Also don't skew in our land history, Syria is not yours, this is a dirty game you are playing fry.GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing any game. Everything you (or I) do and say is out there for everyone to see. I cut out the relevant part of your reply, the beginning was neither sourced nor backed up with anything. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989, chill out. I wasn't referring to you; I was asking the reporter to choose the manner of his own execution, so to speak. Apparently he wasn't the only one upon whom the subtlety was lost. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Subtllety is not something easily conveyed online unless it is overt. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

COM:AGF @ all above.--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're new to this user, so you don't know what he has done. I suggest you spend a little time going through his deletion nominations and DR votes, as well as several talk pages he has been on, and then try and tell us if you can assume good faith in this user. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Giving bad image about me to other is a really dirty thing you do , you are soldering people here to stand againist me , as i said you are playing a very dirty game.GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing any game. People can see your actions and judge for themselves. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

then let them judge by themself , not by giving bad images on me.GhiathArodaki (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether they find out your past behaviour on their own or from my assistance won't change their judgement. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I've full-protected the file temporarily to allow for discussion. I would suggest taking a step back and calming down a bit before going forward with this though. Discussion is needed on the technical point of whether or not the category is appropriate. INeverCry 19:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done or  Not done Depends on the side you're on. GhiathArodaki blocked and locked indef after plain vandalism and insults. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

John Daker again

Please delete File:DustyCrophopper.jpg and block its uploader - sockpuppet of banned User:John Daker. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

 Done INeverCry 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Getuabebe

 Done

• User: Getuabebe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user is a pretty obvious sockpuppet of blocked vandal/self-promoter Getnetabebe (talk · contribs).

darkweasel94 11:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked and locked indef. Upload deleted and filename protected. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Basketball players from Catalonia

Why the Category:Basketball players from Catalonia is blocked and nobody can edit it to recreate it ? Who did that? Who had the user rights to do that? Will that person also delete Category:Basketball players from Texas because Texas is not a country ? --Jordiferrer (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason was: Catalonia doesn't exist as basketball federation. I asked the admin that blocked the page to have a look, because there are still players from Catalonia to be categorized. Give it a day or two, ok? Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down and think twice before talking of "Vandalism" and ask yourself whether "Basketball players from Catalonia" is localism or less. For me it's fine to unblock it as long as you are aware and acknowledge that Catalonia doesn't exist as either basketball or association football federation. The main category for those sportsmen must be "Basketball players from Spain" and "Association football players from Spain". Comparison with the U.S.A. is pointless since they are a federation of 50 States and is perfectly normal for them to categorize people by State because "XXXXX from the United States" would become overcrowded soon. Since Catalonia is neither a State nor a country there is no point in adding complication to those who seek for Spanish footballers or basketballers in some misleading subcategory (as matter of fact, also "Association football players from Asturias" would be wrong). You can use as well the more appropriate category Sportspeople from Catalonia, I even created Category:Players of Catalonia association football team for placing there the people who played for that football team though is not officially recognised. But there is no title to create specific sports categories for sportspeople from Catalonia (or for Lombardy, or for the French department of Ile-de-France). Sorry but here's no place for localism. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 07:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Texas is a subnational entity, Catalonia is a subnational entity, and Lombardy is also a subnational entity, so each of those categories makes equally much sense IMHO. This seems like the wrong place to discuss that though. darkweasel94 08:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If you agree too this whole topic can be shut here since it's not about a vandalism. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Let's move the discussion to Category talk:Basketball players from Catalonia.--Jordiferrer (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done No vandalism. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Account already gblocked, please speedy this, unsuitable name (means "rapist"). --M7 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Didym (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Ciao, M7 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Other vandalism on page of category Society

For information.

I had cancelled a vandalism made by the user Egenio1. See here. --Aacri (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Religious symbol vandalism

Resolved

Trishokane1 (talk · contribs) is a SPA that was used to flip a religious symbol upside down, upsetting some editors on en-wp Shii (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User has 1 edit only, warned. --Alan ^(talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Misack lem

 Done

• User: Misack lem (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: self promotion

The Photographer (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Uploads nuked, warning / info left on talk page. IMHO not block-worthy (for now) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

199.250.250.226

 Done Repeated sock from en.wiki who inserts shock images to user/talk pages. Werieth (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Full block for 1 week. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Philippe Voelsen

ResolvedDeleted uploads, indefblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• User: Philippe Voelsen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Can you please block Philippe Voelsen who uploads insultant images. He's blocked on french wiki (I'm a sysop) because he did a lot of vandalisms with many counts ([21]). Thanks a lot, Jules78120 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert Voelsen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user also, please. Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Itsravazz

Vandalized photo of Miley Cyrus by deleting its file info and replacing with another photograph: [22]. I have reverted the vandalism. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done User warned. INeverCry 04:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted to the correct version to also revert the vandalism by NeonRose123. Semi-protection of the file might be in order considering the edit history. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done per LX --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 14:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Erw0x

Resolved

• User: Erw0x (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Loads non-free pictures without correct license, date, author and source (scans of old photographies from recent literature about the architecture of Dresden). Contributions of other users on the discussion page concerning license problems were deleted without comment or any other action 1. User is probably sock puppet of blocked user Messina from de.wikipedia.

Giorgio Michele (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Likely The 2 accounts share a range, subject matter, and UA. There are several other accounts on that range that look connected per subject matter of uploads and UA:

• Seowel (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Bexexo (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Thelom (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• A.Braun (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Giorgio Michele, you may want to have a look at the uploads of these accounts to see if there's anything wrong with licensing. Blocks may be in order. I'll consult with another CU on this. INeverCry 04:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with INeverCry's assessment of the situation and have blocked the accounts. Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on this. Looking at the SPI on de.wiki, which shows dozens of socks of this user, I'm sure we'll see them again. INeverCry 17:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. All of these accounts have uploaded files lacking the correct license. I'll be aware of activities concerning the problem of scanned photographies without naming the author. And yes, I think we'll see similar socks again. -- Giorgio Michele (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Werner Paulsen

Resolved

• User: Werner Paulsen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandalism on Commons (insultant images to delete, please) and on french wikipedia ([23]). Please see also #Philippe Voelsen and fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Valentin Voelsen for more informations. I will probably again make requests tomorrow, the day after... :/ Sorry for my poor english.

Jules78120 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done User blocked, uploads deleted. I didn't see any other likely socks on the range he's on. INeverCry 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

W560ppdgeq

Resolved

• User: W560ppdgeq (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Next sockpuppet account of blocked user Messina (see User:Erw0x above); loads files without correct license.

-- Giorgio Michele (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and tagged. INeverCry 02:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

W560ppdgeq34562

Resolved

• User: W560ppdgeq34562 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Reasons for reporting: Next sockpuppet account of blocked user Messina (see User:W560ppdgeq above); loads files without correct license.

-- Giorgio Michele (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User blocked.--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

W560ppdgeq34562352029u

Resolved

• User: W560ppdgeq34562352029u (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: No illegal files, but sockpuppet of blocked User:Messina.

Giorgio Michele (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User blocked--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Casimira123456789

Resolved

• User: Casimira123456789 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandal-only account: this file makes nonsense (see "description" and fake category) and, to confirm the ndshkjhfdjkshfkjdshfjkds attitude, Nfnds,fdjkshfkdhjkf is her second creation. Blatant vandal, IMHO. --Dэя-Бøяg 21:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 User blocked Alan ^(talk) 22:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User Conformaccokey

Conformaccokey (talk · contribs) deletes numerous categories. examples: [24], [25] --Anika (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

or maybe not. there is another user involved. --Anika (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 Info Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#user:Conformaccokey --Anika (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

309q0xcvl9

Resolved

• User: 309q0xcvl9 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: No illegal files, but sockpuppet of blocked User:Messina.

Giorgio Michele (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Checked and blocked. INeverCry 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

5790cxdsf

Resolved

• User: 5790cxdsf (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Probably illegal files, sockpuppet of blocked User:Messina.

Giorgio Michele (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and tagged this account and another. I did a limited rangeblock as well: we'll see if that helps at all. INeverCry 18:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

2354lwhwessw65634

Resolved

• User: 2354lwhwessw65634 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Probably illegal files, sockpuppet of blocked User:Messina.

Giorgio Michele (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and tagged. INeverCry 00:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

3582hso8dh2

Resolved

• User: 3582hso8dh2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Probably illegal files, sockpuppet of blocked User:Messina.

Giorgio Michele (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and tagged. INeverCry 15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Neopeta

Resolved

• User: Neopeta (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: User's only uploads are being used to vandalize en:Neopets [26] [27]

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 20:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Peikko_tietosanakirja

Resolved

• User: Peikko_tietosanakirja (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandalizing flags

Tdp301 (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 20:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Camponbantr

Resolved

• User: Camponbantr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Sock of banned User:Camponhoyle. Please also delete the image he uploaded (used for vandalism on en.wiki). Thanks,

NawlinWiki (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

 Done INeverCry 20:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

91.215.188.98

Resolved

• User: 91.215.188.98 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Replaced Category:Bulletin board systems twice: first time, Russian silliness indicating that it was done intentionally; the second time, complete nonsense in Russian. No other edits. Might or might not be related to repeated spamming/vandalism of paired talk page Category talk:Bulletin board systems.

Closeapple (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis II

Pending

• User: Sepsis II (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Editwar about File:Israel location map.svg. Ignorant to any discussion. Was warned several times for his edits in the Israeli-Arab conflict at en:WP and seems to start to continue that on Commons. I would appreciate a semi-protection of the location map, too. NNW 13:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have fully-protected it now for 1 week. --Túrelio (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As this map is a permanent honeypot (like the location maps of Syria, Kashmir, Georgia &c.) this won't help for long but at least for a bit. Thanks. NNW 13:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

NordNordWest

 Rejected

• User: NordNordWest (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Editwar about File:Israel location map.svg. Ignorant to any discussion, refuses to acknowledge multiple sources brought forth such as the UN and CIA. User refuses to source the map, a map which currently represents an extremist nationalist viewpoint. As such the map cannot be used on en.wiki per verifiability, npov, and more. A block may be required to ensure that the user will not edit war nor ignore multiple reliable sources in the future. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidently a revenge-posting. NordNordWest hasn't done anything wrong. It's you, Sepsis II, who doesn't show reason, despite being told, even in a third opinion (User:TUBS).[28] If you think :en can only accept your POV, feel free to create your own map version. --Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a revenege posting this, please strike your personal attacks. It is not my POV, it is the mainstream view point, as seen by the sources I presented such as the UN, CIA, Jewish Virtual Library, and many others. NNW has failed to rpesent a single source if favour of his edits, is original research a right on commons? Sepsis II (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You got plenty answers to all this already[29], but choose to ignore them. And, yes, Commons has no NOR-policy, as it wouldn't make sense: Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. --Túrelio (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

vandalisme on file talk page

Resolved

Vandalism at File talk:Elst Rijksmonument 14948 NH kerk vanuit noord.JPG - to be suppressed by deletion of file talk page? -Havang(nl) (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pan-Irannist

User:Pan-Irannist is vandalizing old maps without any discussions. Please see his contributions. Can you warn/block him/her? ThanksR0stam (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, one month each for User:Pan-Irannist and User:HistoryofIran for edit warring (~ 100 in a few days), enough is enough. Cooling of period is what the doctor ordered. Maps in question edit protected (indef, admin only) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vijayaguru

Resolved--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• User: Vijayaguru (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Two edits in June 2010 on his talk page with a suspect infobox actor (not working here) related to himself (and with his own web). After 3 years, on 29 september, he uploaded this non free file (deleted), and now he created this nonsense pages: Vijayaguru and its talk. More than tests of a new user, this sound like self-promo/vandal edits. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

ːLooks to me like the test edits of someone unfamiliar with a wiki who may not know English. Jonathunder (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong. So, by now I could consider the issue as resolved. I'll watch in case of eventual further strange edits. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 05:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Overwriting a file

Resolved--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone clean up File:Groenendaal Park Heemstede - Tennis court entrance former toll gate.jpg so there is only the original file; the uploader seems to take revenge for suppressed files.--Havang(nl) (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jquann27

Resolved

• User: Jquann27 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user uploaded a file with very poor quality (File:Verkehrszeichen Wendeverbot.svg) and tried to place it in german Wikipedia articles. It was repeatedly reverted, because of it's poor quality and because it wasn't an official sign. There were several attempts to communicate with Jquann27, but obviously he refused to discuss this matter (see his talk page). There were also several attempts to fake the file's author, at least the latest attempt was made by Jquann27 himself (see here)

Schniggendiller (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And look at other files from this user, for example this: File:Bild 14a - Verkehrsverbot für Fahrräder, StVO 1942.svg. The "source" ist quite a joke: "Quelle: Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 1942, Nr. 56, S. 1221. Tag der Ausgabe: Bonn, 7. September 1942." --Wahldresdner (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense deleted, user completely blocked indef / vandalism. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Possible vandalisme at [[30]] category for discussion, I took it first as serious, but I doubt it. SVP, Check IPnumber if there is a relation with Botacyclem. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Could be an IP-sock. Needs to be checkusered to verify. If he wants to discuss the category, why not? I'm not sure what there is to discuss, so I guess it will be closed soon. To ask for verification, please see Com:CHECK. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that he is also operating under User:ProhibitedUser200008--Havang(nl) (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Rhaniel Santos

Resolved

• User: Rhaniel Santos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Obviously doesn't have a clue on what is a license or acceptable. Clearly he uploads here every image he likes found on Google images. I marked as copyvio many of them, but I guess that there should be any more expedite method of coping with this kind of situation. --Stegop (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This user is already blocked by Érico Júnior Wouters for one week. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Vijayaguru

Resolved--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• User: Vijayaguru (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Two edits in June 2010 on his talk page with a suspect infobox actor (not working here) related to himself (and with his own web). After 3 years, on 29 september, he uploaded this non free file (deleted), and now he created this nonsense pages: Vijayaguru and its talk. More than tests of a new user, this sound like self-promo/vandal edits. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

ːLooks to me like the test edits of someone unfamiliar with a wiki who may not know English. Jonathunder (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong. So, by now I could consider the issue as resolved. I'll watch in case of eventual further strange edits. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 05:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Overwriting a file

Resolved--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone clean up File:Groenendaal Park Heemstede - Tennis court entrance former toll gate.jpg so there is only the original file; the uploader seems to take revenge for suppressed files.--Havang(nl) (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jquann27

Resolved

• User: Jquann27 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user uploaded a file with very poor quality (File:Verkehrszeichen Wendeverbot.svg) and tried to place it in german Wikipedia articles. It was repeatedly reverted, because of it's poor quality and because it wasn't an official sign. There were several attempts to communicate with Jquann27, but obviously he refused to discuss this matter (see his talk page). There were also several attempts to fake the file's author, at least the latest attempt was made by Jquann27 himself (see here)

Schniggendiller (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And look at other files from this user, for example this: File:Bild 14a - Verkehrsverbot für Fahrräder, StVO 1942.svg. The "source" ist quite a joke: "Quelle: Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 1942, Nr. 56, S. 1221. Tag der Ausgabe: Bonn, 7. September 1942." --Wahldresdner (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense deleted, user completely blocked indef / vandalism. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Possible vandalisme at [[31]] category for discussion, I took it first as serious, but I doubt it. SVP, Check IPnumber if there is a relation with Botacyclem. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Could be an IP-sock. Needs to be checkusered to verify. If he wants to discuss the category, why not? I'm not sure what there is to discuss, so I guess it will be closed soon. To ask for verification, please see Com:CHECK. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that he is also operating under User:ProhibitedUser200008--Havang(nl) (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Rhaniel Santos

Resolved

• User: Rhaniel Santos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Obviously doesn't have a clue on what is a license or acceptable. Clearly he uploads here every image he likes found on Google images. I marked as copyvio many of them, but I guess that there should be any more expedite method of coping with this kind of situation. --Stegop (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This user is already blocked by Érico Júnior Wouters for one week. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

219.116.115.176

 Done

• User: 219.116.115.176 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: [32]. Repeating meaningless edit. The user is also vandalizing on jawp and enwp.

TTTNIS (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Doesn't seem to be able to learn from two previous blocks. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

198.15.78.109

Resolved

198.15.78.109 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• cross wiki vandal vandalism

--Ot (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Cesardavidd

Resolved

• User: Cesardavidd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User: Cesar david rodriguez (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User: Cesarkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• Reasons for reporting: vandalizing commons images from a long time. --Shadowxfox

---

Copied from Village pump: == Blocking a vandalic user == Hello, I want to request a user block (and their puppets) who have been vandalizing commons images from a long time, the user in question is: Cesardavidd and his puppets Cesarkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk and Cesar david rodriguez. Anyone know how to do this or where I should ask ? Thank you very much.--Shadowxfox (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done All three users full indef blocked, files protected for one week just in case... (exception: I protected File:GUY orthographic.svg infinte, too many peeps are reverting and uploading new stuff that gets reverted later.) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Holycompanybd

Please consider blocking Holycompanybd, which appears to be a spam-only account: see [33] and [34]. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Cesardavidd

Resolved

• User: Cesardavidd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User: Cesar david rodriguez (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User: Cesarkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• Reasons for reporting: vandalizing commons images from a long time. --Shadowxfox

---

Copied from Village pump: == Blocking a vandalic user == Hello, I want to request a user block (and their puppets) who have been vandalizing commons images from a long time, the user in question is: Cesardavidd and his puppets Cesarkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk and Cesar david rodriguez. Anyone know how to do this or where I should ask ? Thank you very much.--Shadowxfox (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done All three users full indef blocked, files protected for one week just in case... (exception: I protected File:GUY orthographic.svg infinte, too many peeps are reverting and uploading new stuff that gets reverted later.) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Holycompanybd

Please consider blocking Holycompanybd, which appears to be a spam-only account: see [35] and [36]. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

107.9.56.92

Resolved

• User: 107.9.56.92 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandalism, see: here and here.

Whisternefet (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Warned them. Materialscientist (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow92

• User: Flow92 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Talk rejecting, reverting other user's proper edit, and breaking Category[37].--TTTNIS (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• See also: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 41#Flow92, likely sockpuppet of Hamburg73 and Invitto. Ain92 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Pretty obvious sockpuppet, indef'ed. --A.Savin 20:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

162.201.129.208

Pending

• User: 162.201.129.208 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: meaningless edits.

Kw0 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

141.91.136.40

Resolved

• User: 141.91.136.40 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• User: 141.91.136.41 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This is Invitto/Flow92/Hamburg73 again, this time editing from anonymous ip's. Constant contentious editing and block evasion, with a weird obsession with the Nissan Vanette. Also see here and here.

mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 22:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Nikostrd

Resolved

• User: Nikostrd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user has been unabashedly uploading photographs of Pella, Alexander the Great, and Giannitsa that he has not taken, amongst many other copyright violations (such as uploading promotional photographs of the Power Rangers to this project). He has inserted these stolen photographs on several language projects, most prominently the Greek and English Wikipedias, and I have done my best to remove every single photograph he linked there. This has been going on since last year and must be stopped before he can do any more damage.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Yes the user has made many edits going back a while, but I'm only seeing one set of warnings about what we are looking for. At this point I'm going to assume good faith and say he's needs informing & teaching more than blocking. I've left a message on his talk page pointing him to COM:L in Greek. Tabercil (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr.Choppers

Resolved

• User: Mr.choppers (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• This User always too many mistakes, reverting other user's proper edit, and breaking Category [38],[39]

[Category:Nissan Vanette Cargo HC23] [Category:Nissan Vanette Cargo C22] [Category:Nissan Caball] [Category:Nissan Clipper T65] [Category:Nissan Vanette E] [Category:Nissan Homer] Links to photos and other information have brought nothing, he just continues with his edit war. although he obviously has no idea and would have only right.--89.204.138.27 14:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

this is vandalism. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week but I'm sure he'll come back under just another IP. Added some files to my watchlist for easier spotting. --Denniss (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

more ips (blocked for a week):

• 89.204.155.241
• 89.204.154.69
• 89.204.139.167
• 89.204.139.201
• 89.204.155.2
• 89.204.137.136
• 89.204.139.45
• 82.113.106.124

--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Holy moly! I wish his persistence could be channeled usefully. So much trouble because he refuses to contemplate the possibility that he is incorrect in thinking "C20" the chassis code of the Nissan Vanette, and because he doesn't understand the concept of overcategorizing. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 23:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yasser_mejlad

Pending

• User: Yasser_mejlad (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: overwrites pictures and descriptions of Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, banned from french wiki for vandalism on the article.

Gonioul (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Warned, other admins can take additional action if they think it appropriate. —Mono 03:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted from the history the image he had imported. Okki (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

193.106.111.104

Pending

• User: 193.106.111.104 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Appears to be 193.106.108.104 (talk · contribs) who has been repeatedly vandalising File:Keith B. Alexander official portrait.jpg and was blocked for a year in June 2013. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • While the IP range is similar and the ISP is the same, I don't feel that a block is yet warranted. If they vandalise Commons again, a block would be likely. For now, I've protected File:Keith B. Alexander official portrait.jpg for 1 month (though I had accidentally protected it for "indefinite"). Bidgee (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Leoulf

Resolved

• User: Leoulf (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: copy violance of covers from music-albums

Codc (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mikelanzelo32

Someone take a look at this, please: Special:Contributions/Mikelanzelo32. Vandalism / trolling / cluelessness, right? The edit in COM:CLIC is especially problematic, I think. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User warned and vandalism deleted --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Vicki breazeale

Resolved

• User: Vicki breazeale (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: I suspect that user purposes are promotional about him and his friends. Apart this nonsense in july, see the text of Huston smith. Anyway, following his contribs at enwiki and the speedy deletion notices on his user talk the suspect seems to be confirmed. Look for example to this spam and this personal reflection into unrelated WP pages, to this or this other deletion logs, to this wp book, the sandbox, the user page, the sandbox talk (with the same text of this vandalism -noticed-), the spam/vandalism added to a new user totally unrealted with him or his field (in the user page and talk), this sort of personal attack, this spam (repeated into several pages), this other, this POV sentence, this other POV... etc... And I've only watched on a dozen of contribs of a user with 54 edits. Why report here? Because at this point the self-promotional attitude is clear. And also the crosswiki vandalisms. I don't think an user can do this amount of mistakes in good faith, adding for example his promo on the page of a new user. And btw, open a page here saying, or better ordering to us: A gallery for Huston Smith must be created. He is the philosopher of the 21st century and a friend of mine requires no further comment. Crosswiki and skilled spammer to indef block immediatly. I'll report him at enwiki also. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked at enwiki. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for intervention. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Just a further request: Could somebody block user's possibility to edit his talk? Just to avoid other teases. Thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

no need, this is just a comment --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, btw thanks again. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of Peru.svg

Could the vandalism by Wikipolicía be RevDel'd back to the last version by Huhsunqu please? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Done + indef protected as high-use image. --Denniss (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fry1989 ^eh? 19:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No speak english, no hablo inglés por eso voy ha hacer mi denuncia en español , a raíz de sus modificaciones en File:Flag of Peru.svg, revertí sus ediciones y le deje este mensaje, el cual me respondió con esto, por ello pido el bloqueo del usuario y la protección de mi página de discusión, aclaro que el usuario esta bloqueado en es.wikipedia --Chico512 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Gracias. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Mo.sokoleipzig

Resolved

• User: Mo.sokoleipzig (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: repeated copyright violations

Der Checkerboy (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

216.107.153.247

Resolved

• User: 216.107.153.247 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: User offending other users. The Photographer (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Superstar12435

Pending

• User: Superstar12435 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Another entry for Category:Sockpuppets of RealMadridCF2012 Again he tried to create fake articles about a "prominent" person with the same name. 79.216.24.211 20:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

91.66.153.214

Resolved

• User: 91.66.153.214 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: User offending other users, vandalism (inserting nonsesve content [40], edit warrings ets) St1995 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, vandal 91.66.153.214 12:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I took a cursory look at this user’s contributions and didn’t find any blattant vandalism, quite the contrary. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I wouldn't say that the IP's contributions are vandalism, but they have no inhibitions about applying the term to anyone who dares to disagree with their actions. Some monitoring of their communications with other users might be called for: they seem to be making a point of responding offensively to any communications, as evidenced by the "nice try, vandal" above. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, that the guy I personally have caught some weeks ago vandalizing good categories as here [41] tells me something about vandalism. That's a special kind of humour, or?

And why User:Stas1995 is allowed to vandalize the useful categories out of File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1866)_b_621.jpg ? Should he really keep his patroller and other rights? Why? 91.66.153.214 13:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Maybe I did not notice that you have added a categories, and only spoiled "design", and therefore I revert your edit. St1995 13:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you need to take a good look to the diffs before reverting. Your removal of apparently correct categorization, especially when described as anti-vandalism, is exactly what is making me step in in this discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

2. My rights do not concern you, 91.66.153.214. We are talking now about your "defiance". St1995 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course they do. Your rights, as any one’s, are tools to help you better serve the community — and the community is every user of any project, not only your fellow admins, not even only registrated users. If you are misusing your rights, they need to be evaluated. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Result

See Block log. St1995 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

91.66.153.214

Resolved

• User: 91.66.153.214 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: User offending other users, vandalism (inserting nonsesve content [42], edit warrings ets) St1995 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, vandal 91.66.153.214 12:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I took a cursory look at this user’s contributions and didn’t find any blattant vandalism, quite the contrary. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I wouldn't say that the IP's contributions are vandalism, but they have no inhibitions about applying the term to anyone who dares to disagree with their actions. Some monitoring of their communications with other users might be called for: they seem to be making a point of responding offensively to any communications, as evidenced by the "nice try, vandal" above. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, that the guy I personally have caught some weeks ago vandalizing good categories as here [43] tells me something about vandalism. That's a special kind of humour, or?

And why User:Stas1995 is allowed to vandalize the useful categories out of File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1866)_b_621.jpg ? Should he really keep his patroller and other rights? Why? 91.66.153.214 13:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Maybe I did not notice that you have added a categories, and only spoiled "design", and therefore I revert your edit. St1995 13:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you need to take a good look to the diffs before reverting. Your removal of apparently correct categorization, especially when described as anti-vandalism, is exactly what is making me step in in this discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

2. My rights do not concern you, 91.66.153.214. We are talking now about your "defiance". St1995 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course they do. Your rights, as any one’s, are tools to help you better serve the community — and the community is every user of any project, not only your fellow admins, not even only registrated users. If you are misusing your rights, they need to be evaluated. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Result

See Block log. St1995 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dontworry

Resolved

• Benutzer: Dontworry (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Grund: Massenhafte Löschung von Kategorien in Stolperstein-Kategorien (siehe Benutzerbeiträge, z.B. [44]). Fruchtlose Diskussion mit dem Benutzer auf meiner Disk bereits erfolgt: [45]. --axel (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 7 days --A.Savin 18:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Louandvans

This guy just uploaded a turd and gay porn. I think he's pretty obviously a vandal, or at least has no idea how to contribute. Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

91.66.153.214

Resolved

• User: 91.66.153.214 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: User offending other users, vandalism (inserting nonsesve content [46], edit warrings ets) St1995 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, vandal 91.66.153.214 12:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I took a cursory look at this user’s contributions and didn’t find any blattant vandalism, quite the contrary. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I wouldn't say that the IP's contributions are vandalism, but they have no inhibitions about applying the term to anyone who dares to disagree with their actions. Some monitoring of their communications with other users might be called for: they seem to be making a point of responding offensively to any communications, as evidenced by the "nice try, vandal" above. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, that the guy I personally have caught some weeks ago vandalizing good categories as here [47] tells me something about vandalism. That's a special kind of humour, or?

And why User:Stas1995 is allowed to vandalize the useful categories out of File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1866)_b_621.jpg ? Should he really keep his patroller and other rights? Why? 91.66.153.214 13:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Maybe I did not notice that you have added a categories, and only spoiled "design", and therefore I revert your edit. St1995 13:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you need to take a good look to the diffs before reverting. Your removal of apparently correct categorization, especially when described as anti-vandalism, is exactly what is making me step in in this discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

2. My rights do not concern you, 91.66.153.214. We are talking now about your "defiance". St1995 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course they do. Your rights, as any one’s, are tools to help you better serve the community — and the community is every user of any project, not only your fellow admins, not even only registrated users. If you are misusing your rights, they need to be evaluated. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Result

See Block log. St1995 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The result is:

12:19, 15 November 2013 AzaToth (talk | contribs) blocked 91.66.153.214 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anonymous users only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: User is removing categories from images, and is removing the template FileContentsByBot)

(transcribed for reference) -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, I have a problem with this. First, Stas1995 reverting was can be seen as correct categorization under the guise of anti-vandalism and excusing hirself with lack of attention (!), then AzaToth inflicting a 7-day block on the IP for «removing categories», while the one removing categories was Stas1995 in the first place. Did I miss the now blocked IP actually removing categories? Are we blocking users, even IPs, willy-nilly, not even paying attention to the arguments? -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:171.207.189.50

Resolved

• User: 171.207.189.50 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Obvious vandal -- vandalized my talk page 5 times (so far), and also an image. It seems obviously personal, although I don't know who it is: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done IP has been blocked by User:Leyo --High Contrast (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

91.66.153.214

• User: 91.66.153.214 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: User offending other users, vandalism (inserting nonsesve content [53], edit warrings ets) St1995 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, vandal 91.66.153.214 12:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I took a cursory look at this user’s contributions and didn’t find any blattant vandalism, quite the contrary. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I wouldn't say that the IP's contributions are vandalism, but they have no inhibitions about applying the term to anyone who dares to disagree with their actions. Some monitoring of their communications with other users might be called for: they seem to be making a point of responding offensively to any communications, as evidenced by the "nice try, vandal" above. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, that the guy I personally have caught some weeks ago vandalizing good categories as here [54] tells me something about vandalism. That's a special kind of humour, or?

And why User:Stas1995 is allowed to vandalize the useful categories out of File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1866)_b_621.jpg ? Should he really keep his patroller and other rights? Why? 91.66.153.214 13:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Maybe I did not notice that you have added a categories, and only spoiled "design", and therefore I revert your edit. St1995 13:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you need to take a good look to the diffs before reverting. Your removal of apparently correct categorization, especially when described as anti-vandalism, is exactly what is making me step in in this discussion. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

2. My rights do not concern you, 91.66.153.214. We are talking now about your "defiance". St1995 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course they do. Your rights, as any one’s, are tools to help you better serve the community — and the community is every user of any project, not only your fellow admins, not even only registrated users. If you are misusing your rights, they need to be evaluated. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Result

See Block log. St1995 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The result is:

12:19, 15 November 2013 AzaToth (talk | contribs) blocked 91.66.153.214 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anonymous users only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: User is removing categories from images, and is removing the template FileContentsByBot)

(transcribed for reference) -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, I have a problem with this. First, Stas1995 reverting was can be seen as correct categorization under the guise of anti-vandalism and excusing hirself with lack of attention (!), then AzaToth inflicting a 7-day block on the IP for «removing categories», while the one removing categories was Stas1995 in the first place. Did I miss the now blocked IP actually removing categories? Are we blocking users, even IPs, willy-nilly, not even paying attention to the arguments? -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume, you are the only user on commons who is interested in fighting against vandalism.

I have tried to discuss my block on English Wikipedia on administrators' noticeboard, because Aza Toth is also an administrator there, but it was pointless. Probably this case would be better placed on meta with some staff members. 91.66.153.214 11:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that you, 91.66.153.214, were mistreated in this case, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the way you conducted yourself. Going to English Wikipedia or Meta is needless and useless — whatever ills plague Commons you’re bound to find them there too, and each project has autonomous conflict administration. My advice: Document the conflict the best you can (here or in an user page), create and use an account (so you have a consistent “voice”), go back to normal editing, and rein in your temper — the latter is important, especially when you’re right and they are wrong, as in this case: Reading your participation in this matter I saw myself on a mirror of sorts, and I didn’t like it. Can’t catch flies with vinegar and all that. The grudges, the colorful language — yes, it feels good, but looks bad: Being right is enough. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is imho vandalism... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. Vandalism means wilful distruction or defacement for its own sake. Here it can be argued that the IP removed content whose value s/he’s not aware of, such as the DrTrigon bot additions. Some other changes, such as removing Category:JPEG, were also correctly made in my view, while others, such as removing Category:Groups instead of giving more detail to it, were not. The addition of a more detailed category to replace Category:Unidentified people, and the link to wp:en, show that this user wanted to improve the file page. Instead of revert and reprimand s/he should be reasoned with. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But is is vandalism removing Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard etc. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If he thinks he’s removing clutter, then it is not vandalism. (Laterally, I should say I’ve seen Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard routinely removed by experienced users (maybe even admins) to no repercussion. What is the policy about it?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

181.165.96.43

Resolved

• User: 181.165.96.43 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Reverting all my edits on File:Bandera de la Provincia de Córdoba.svg without valid reasons. I left messages on his talk page to try to reach a consensus if necessary, but he has not stopped.

Fma12 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24hrs and file semi-protected for 2 weeks. INeverCry 04:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

217.200.185.213

Resolved

• User: 217.200.185.213 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Nonsense changes here and here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Éric Poclain (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

217.200.185.218 (Category:Cuisine of Italy and Category:Products of Italy)

Resolved

• User: 217.200.185.218 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Successor of 217.200.185.213 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Nonsense changes here and here. Please also protect the two categories, so that only autoconfirmed users can edit them. Thank you!--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I've have warned the IP. 2 edits, which are wrong, but not per se vandalism, are not enough for a block. I've also semi-protected the 2 categories for 1 day. If the vandalism goes on, please report again here. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User Taron Saharyan

User Taron Saharyan continued removing category from the page without consensus. To avoid edit warring the page was blocked on consensuses version. But after unblocking user continued edit warring. Without discussion and consensus user removes category. --Interfase (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done I warned him with block. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

217.231.115.222

Resolved

• User: 217.231.115.222 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: IP Vandalism. Please note that File:President and First Lady Obama with Chancellor Merkel.jpg has recently been vandalised by multiple IPs.

Sitacuisses (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done - IP blocked for 1 day, page protected for 30 days --A.Savin 10:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Iamsucharetardbabes1

Resolved

• User: Iamsucharetardbabes1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Unpleasant drive by editing: See the 1st version of his user page (which I later blanked). Also uploaded File:Chloe Neill.jpg (no google or tineye hits) in what may constitute harrassment. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Acct blocked, upload deleted. INeverCry 18:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Lightworks99

Resolved

• User: Lightworks99 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Sock of longtime en.wiki vandal User:Ananny, artist trying to promote her own work. Please block user and delete her files. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

NawlinWiki (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done User blocked, uploads nuked. INeverCry 18:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Electronqnv

Resolved

• User: Electronqnv (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: All user contribs indicate that he is using Commons for promotional purposes: the electoral campaign of Ron Q. Quilang. See also this file with the Category:Elect Ron Q. Quilang for Senator, this file talk in which he copied the text of Ron Q. Quilang. Also the ianppropriate user name, "elect ron q nv" means "elect ron q quilang nevada" (in the article is explained that the person is candidated as senator of Nevada). To indef block as soon as possible. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 00:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done, thanks. And, as I've suspected, crosswiki vandal at enwiki. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Rene olivera

Resolved

• User: Rene olivera (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Several copyviol about file licenses attributed to himself, several time warned. I suspect that also this last file is a copyvio. Anwyay, apart the watermarks into several files uploaded by him, apart the wrong categorization and other, I note that his user page was deleted for self-promo (as did at eswiki, with several notices into his talk, all unheard, with the page created again). At eswiki i note also that the article es:Rene Olivera Lahera was deleted as promo, the user was blocked with this reason (i translate: Insists on using Wikipedia as vanity, arbitrarily delete posts and misuse userpage). At eswiki I note also that es:Casablanca (La Habana) is a copy-paste of the same article on EcuRed, es:San Germán (Holguín) and San German (Cuba) (now a redirect after my fix) are the same page, es:Tito Livio Patavino (with this file candidated for speedy del as copyvio), apart the existance of es:Tito Livio is another copy-paste from EcuRed. Newest article of him, es:FreshStyle Mu Sic (Musico), needs a control IMHO. Anyway, to resume: for this reasons, the copyvio, the self-promo attitude (in write-only also), the attribution of own works to deleted files per copyvio and other, I request an indef ban. I'm also notifying it on eswiki. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Some files related to Cuba may be a copyvio of EcuRed, as for example this map, that looks like a thumb of EcuRed maps. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Infact, the file is a copyvio. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Aslo es:San Germán (Holguín) was a copyvio of Ecured, (thanks to the admin UAwiki).

Other copyvio discovered: the File:San German Cuba 1.jpg is copied from camagueycuba.org (thanks again to UAwiki); the File:La-habana-capitolio-nacional.jpg from this EcuRed file (note the people near entrance, is in the same position).

• Well, to resume: Controlling all the files, that are all marked as "own work", I start to suspect that, MAYBE excluding the ones with user's watermark, all of them could be a copyvio. For further infos see user contribs at eswiki. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Other copyvio founded:
  • File:San German Cuba 4.jpg is here (from this site, the 1st picture, author's name is shown below)
  • File:San German Cuba 3.jpg and File:San German Cuba 2.jpg are here (section "San Germán, Holguín", images 2 and 3, picture square is identical, also the dimension, grass and clouds). In a better resolution some of this pictures are on Panoramio (exaples: 01, 02...).
  • File:La-lanchita-de-casablanca-y-la-vista-mas-famosa-de-la-habana.jpg is here (also article's title is the same, as the clouds, and below you can read author's name and date).
  • File:El Malecon de La Habana.jpg is here (a thumb version, here, see below, also with author's name and date)

At this point I think that no one of this "own work" is an own work. Files as this one seems to be an enlargement of a thumb found on Google, this file has a signature (Rafa G., in the bottom right corner). I suggest for a mass deletion per copyvio. --Dэя-Бøяg 05:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Following the notices user is stale, also at eswiki. I left my suggestion to control the other files uploaded (mainly this and this other (with a signature "Rafa G.")) and eventually to delete 'em. By the way, assuming the good faith of user, I can consider this report as "resolved". I'll watch and eventually report again in case of further copyvios. Thanks. --Dэя-Бøяg 18:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated his files for deletion in the past and I can treat this thread as deletion request. If Olivera does not say or do anything, then after 7 days (14th of December) I will delete all his suspicious uploads. Is it good solution? Taivo (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, IMHO is the perfect solution. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Almost all uploads are deleted now. Taivo (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Qwerty569

Resolved

• User: Qwerty569 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user uploaded many photos that were copied from various copyrighted web sites. He also transcluded all those photos to an English Wikipedia article. I reported those photos as copyvio, and there were all deleted. Now, the same user has uploaded those photos again, and some more photos ([55]). Those are all copyvios found on Google search. I think he should be blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User hasn't edit again neither upload nothing since last warning, if he/she continues we'll block him/her. Ezarateesteban 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleventwenty

Resolved

• User: Eleventwenty (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: has overwritten the File:0092 - Wien - Kunsthistorisches Museum - Gaius Julius Caesar-edit.jpg now today the third time with an image of Caesar from Naples and then changed the text too. Understand nothing on his discussion. The fiole ha changed the older one to already exists: File:Giulio-cesare-enhanced 1-800x1450.jpg. And even there he changed the better version to a poorer one. For me clear vandalism. He has done this also already with his first edits in January in the File:Tiberius NyCarlsberg01.jpg - more he has done yet on Commons.

Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've VOA blocked him. I don't see any productive edits from this account, only disruptive edit-warring with overwrites. The responses on his talk look like troll-speak to me. INeverCry 22:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also history-cleaned the 2 most affected files and upload protected them. INeverCry 23:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Rene olivera

Resolved

• User: Rene olivera (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This was my previous report, few days ago, in which I finally assumed user's good faith. After the reports and warnings, here and on eswiki (see: user contribs and user talk), followed by a mass deletion of copyvio about files and texts (here and there), user was stale... Unfortunately, following his new contribs, I noticed that the user continues in the same attitude. The files Yanela brooks.jpg and Yanela Brooks.jpg, uploaded 3 days after the notices, have been deleted as copyvio (and this one was deleted twice); the article es:Yanela Brooks (La Voz) is quite all a copyvio of Brooks' website... At this point I seriously doubt the good faith of the user, who simply seems to have chosen to ignore Wikimedia's policies about copyvio, acting in write-only. Not a word has been spent to explain anything, he simply waited and started again, in the same way. So, I request a ban for repeated copyvio after several warnings and uncooperative attitude. I'll report this second problem also at es.wiki. --Dэя-Бøяg 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 23:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

HomohaterKK

Resolved

• User: HomohaterKK (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Offensive name; vandalism account. Uploaded file is hate speech and needs deletion. User is removing speedy delete template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comment - already global locked. JurgenNL (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Atone and Plead

Resolved

• User: Atone and Plead (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Same user as above report. Egregious vandalism.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No Ts for Qs

Resolved

• User: No Ts for Qs (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Same as above two. See file uploads

EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. INeverCry 04:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've also done a couple of rangeblocks. We'll see if that stops him. INeverCry 05:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Orrling in File:Old City of Accre 02.jpg

Resolved

• User: Orrling (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: The user now set back the third time my changes from a text that says what is to see on the image to a meaningless description. It's part of a war of him against me since I yesteday changed some of the names of his uploads because the names of the files were meaningless as the description of the here reported image. Please a Admin set back to my description and exhorts this user to stop his acting.

Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done 3 revert rule. I reverted Orrling and blocked him for 1 day. I am not sure, that this is enough. I could not decide, how to block somebody with such block log. Taivo (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that was a good preventative choice for the time being. Further disruptive editing could warrant a longer block, but that can be discussed if needed. INeverCry 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Far from me to suggest I know batter than an Admin here, but all I know about Orrling is from rubbing shoulders with him while categorizing images — his work is good, and the link above lists a steady flow of significant and valuable contributions. To have him blocked, even for 24 h only, seems to be A Bad Thing for the project (assuming categorization is a cherished goal; not less so than, say, closing 1000 DRs per minute); to consider blocking him for more than 24 h over what is a transparent bait from someone with a grudge (and the only thing I know Marcus Cyron for is from the ANU page next door) cannot be but a bad joke. Of course today is Christmas, not April’s Fool, so I worry. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I was making a general observation rather than commenting on this particular block/situation. A short block for edit warring is usually the most appropriate and effective answer, while a long block of an established editor like Orrling isn't something I like to see without discussion and the presentation of alternatives. Well, time to go close another 1000 DRs, though I may not be able to do it in a minute...I've slowed down a bit over time. INeverCry 23:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

203.160.28.210

203.160.28.210 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

• Spambot-only IP (long-term) St1995 19:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Indef'ed --A.Savin 19:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Thank you St1995 19:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

File:ABZ Moskau.jpg

On the file delete request was made. This was removed by a user with 100 posts.[56] Such a decision has to meet an administrator. --217.246.195.97 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC). Same on the Deletion request [57] and File talk:ABZ Moskau.jpg --217.246.195.97 00:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I deleted this. Yann (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Fetishgay

Resolved

Speed deletion of reuploaded exhibtionistic material far out of project scope. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Tiptoety ^talk 18:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

99.230.224.242

Resolved

• User: 99.230.224.242 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Anon bracketing file information.

Auric (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - last edit: 28 March 2013 --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bryce51902

Resolved

• User: Bryce51902 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Repeated copyright violations. The user has had lots of images deleted as copyvios earlier today (see user's talk page), yet continues to upload copyvios (reuploading an image that has just been deleted as a copyvio, adding it to an article on en-WP in an edit that also adds text that has been copied verbatim from a website, and through repeating an edit, including double copyvios, that he has been warned for on his talk page; which seems to indicate a serious lack of competence...).

Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, blocked for the same reason at en (until tomorrow) so using a longer block here to prevent further misuse. --Denniss (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ali.raza.8

Resolved

• User: Ali.raza.8 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Uploading copyrighted pornography to vandalize the English Wikipedia

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

EQUOeditor

Resolved

• User: EQUOeditor (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: He is insulting me. He called me, literally, to be a "Son of a Bitch".

Coentor (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides, He is uploading previoulsy deteled files licensed under CC-NC-ND.--Coentor (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Re-uploading files under CC-ND previoulsy deleted.--Coentor (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Blanking of complains.--Coentor (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 19:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Динамик

Resolved

• User: Динамик (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Their only edits have been racist vandalism, some of which was only uncovered months later. HelenOnline 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked --Didym (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Dark.sorry

Resolved

• User: Dark.sorry (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Multiple copyvios

Gonioul (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User warned by High Contrast. --Alan ^(talk) 05:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Albane46

Resolved

• User: Albane46 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• hello, please block or close my account.

hi, please block and close my account on wikipedia and wikicommons Albane46 (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Minhhanh5

Resolved

• User: Minhhanh5 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: All his uploaded files are to speedy delete, becaus they have not the sense of COmmons.

--K@rl (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Nuked and blocked 1 month. --Alan ^(talk) 09:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tomosid

Resolved

• User: Tomosid (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: All this user seems to do is adding nonsense categories.

--Leyo 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked (one week, the next time indef.) --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What about a speedy decision of Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:Plantillas? --Leyo 18:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Delted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Dida23

Resolved

• User: Dida23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: "Yet another vandal that uses Commons to upload pictures for jokes/hoaxes on Wikipedia". I explain: An hour ago I went into this wikipage (WP:ANI) and clicked other interlinks. Is my habit, sometimes, to (random) search onto other wikis possible crosswiki vandals. Going to Italian one I've seen this page and noted that Dida23 and his sockpuppet were indef blocked as hoax-only accounts (see: Dida and sock). Takin' a look to this edit I've discovered the file uploaded here (probably the user himself), described into the article as the portrait of the ship's captain (or something similar). For this reason I request an indef block of the user as crosswiki vandal. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I posted a warning on his talk page, but it seems that uploading that picture was the only activity he has done here, which happened on January 14. I don't see any other activity, and the sock account isn't registered here. Unless he's done something else here, I don't think blocking is appropriate. Techman224^Talk 03:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok for me too to consider the "case" as closed. In case of further strange edits I'll watch and report. Thanks. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Me Olavarria and possible sockpuppet

Resolved

• User: Me Olavarria (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Possible SP: Pejelagartosconswag (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Me Olavarria's account was used on 29 october to make nonsense vandalisms: [58], [59], [60], [61]. The file descriptions that he vandalized were also vandalized by other anons, and by Pejelagartosconswag few days after: this edit (by "Peje") looks like related to this one by "Olavarria". Another coincidence is the usage by both user of Spanish language and Spanish nicknames (Pejelagarto is a Spanish word for a Mexican fish). The anon IP 190.229.100.254, that made this vandalism few days after Olavarria, could be related. IMHO, despite users are stale, I request an indef ban as (evident) vandalism-only account and possible sockpuppeteer. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Me Olavarria is stale, but has been blocked based on edits. Эlcobbola _talk 15:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on co.wikipedia

Resolved

• Hi, could you please tackle vandalism (on january 27, 2014) with regard to co.wikipedia, by IP adress: ‎69.114.0.107. It consists of a lot of articles which are not written in Corsican language but in other languages. Thanks. Paulu (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  Pleas post your request on metawiki --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  I handled this request. Thanks for reporting. Vogone (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

IP 92.251.11.95

Spambot. Mass deletion is needed too. --Jakob (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked and contribs deleted. --Denniss (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

83.54.141.125

Insults on my user page. By the language used, I beleive its related to PPnocho (talk · contribs), but not sure. --SamuelFreli (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done It's definitely him. Now blocked. INeverCry 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Hello my SuperHumans ;-),
I've stumbled over a rotation-request, missing of any reasoning and with 123 deg – probably a "joke-request", due to the image.
Examining his user contributions I've also found there some - in my opinion senseless - translations; and he is at the other hand missing of any other editing.
I think a warning of being watched by the community could help here?
PS: From time to time I'm reverting such 123-degree-rotaion-requests without further notice ... (mostly ip-address based or of nearly-0-edit-users)
Is there a special common(s) routine how to handle such inconvenient findings?
• Jaybear • ...disc. • 14:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Penyulap

Hello,

I blocked Penyulap for 2 weeks for this. See history. It was reverted 2 times before, and he kept reinserting it. Yann (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Two weeks seems harsh. (Although I confess he is a toxic character and gets on my nerves all the time. But still…) -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Two weeks may be too much for inserting housefly sex in a vote about beetle sex (and edit warring over it, granted), but this is simply vile, spine chilling even for Fæ’s staunchest enemy. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I often find Penyulap to be toxic only to those who don't like bright lights shone in dark places. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

DH85868993

Pending

• User: DH85868993 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: A photo discussed on the brabham bt46 Wikipedia article talk page that was later posted through Wikimedia commons with proper authority "300mixedlbgp1978niki.jpg" was apparently deleted improperly due to vanity issues, not as stated on DH85868993 talk page with one bugatti35racer because raisinpie did not provide suitable confirmation that they had permission to upload file. The talk page of brabham bt46 has a discussion by raisinpie about how he/she took the picture themselves at the 1978 long beach grand prix, USA. How can a picture with proper clearances to be self posted on this site be maliciously removed by another? WHo did it and why? 12voltlighting (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

12voltlighting (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You haven't provided any links or explained the issue very clearly, so I'm not sure what kind of vandalism you think User:DH85868993 has committed. You can see the upload and deletion history of File:300mixedlbgp1978niki.jpg in its log. I don't know why you think the deletion was improper or what vanity was supposedly involved. Could you please clarify? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My apology to DH8568993. Sorry LX, do not know how to do links. From the history page of Brabham BT46 it certainly appeared as though DH was responsible for the deletion. I see from your appreciated link, above, with "File:" added before 300mixedlbgp1978niki.jpg that it was actually user/administrator? "Fastify" with DH merely repeating (on his talk page exchange with bugatti35racer) the apparent "no authorization" reason noted by Fastify on the file history. (LX, see near end of this post for brief summary, about 9 lines from bottom----IN SUMMARY...or read on) I had searched in vain for the history of that file, and found many interesting things using google, but was unawares adding "File:" ahead would get me there. Thank you LX. It can be difficult for folks uninitiated to find such simple things at "Wiki." To the matter at hand; it would appear, that for some reason Fastify removed a "nice and friendly" picture taken at a public event in the U.S. of the Brabham BT46 racing car, including the helmeted driver, Niki Lauda a publicly well known personality. According to the talk page of Brabham BT46 (near bottom) user raisinpie stated it was a picture owned entirely by them, as they took the picture (obviously film camera--1978) and wondered if any Brabham BT46 article watcher's had any comment, etc. Then there is a discussion just below that (very bottom of that page) talking about moving it slightly in the article and resizing it etc., after it had been posted. On raisinpie talk page it is stated that the pic is taken by themselves and never published or posted anywhere before, and an inquiry (help) is made into posting the pic. user/administrator? Darkwind replies it should be fine to add using CC-BY-SA-3.0 authorization. Now, this whole exchange, beginning with article Brabham BT46 pic post caught my eye for various reasons (I have tons of such pictures from F1 and other) and I noted that CC-BY-SA-3.0 was the protocol used, as my interest in posting pics and editing grew and I began inquiries into CC-BY-SA-3.0 and other options, but am yet to post pics. So I am quite curious how this could be anything but vandalism of some sort, as all the rules seem to have been followed in the posting of that non fan car Brabham BT46 on the Brabham BT46 Wikipedia article, with picture originating here on Commons. Sorry LX, I do not know how toprovide you with links, but have taken some time to edit this post for your clarity and ease of understanding, and noting pages I refer. I have tried to explain issue clearly. ---IN SUMMARY, it appears user/admin? "Fastify" has taken liberties deleting a properly (CC-BY-SA-3.0) clarified Wiki-Commons photo taken by user "Raisinpie" at a public event in the U.S. in 1978, and uploaded here, and Wikipedia by same. Fastify states some Commons rule was violated it that pics addition to W-Commons/WP. After reading Commons-OTRS ["When Contacting OTRS is Unnecessary" I took the picture myself and it hasn't previously been published (and there is no other copyright involved).] it would thus appear that Fastify had no cause to delete it, and well may have done so maliciously as a vandal. I do not, of course, know that, for a fact, but indications his statement "as of Dec 6, 2013 raisinpie had no permission" somehow just does not sound right, and I would like to know for future reference how that is true--if it is true--and how self posting one's own pic never before published under CC-BY-SA-3.0 can result in deletion for no permissions. How can the pic be returned to Commons and or WP? Thank you.12voltlighting (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this problem (came here from DH85868993's talk page), but I would be more than willing to assist 12voltlighting in negotiating the various copyright hurdles we have to deal with here. Go ahead and upload photos, post me a not on my talk page when you do, and I will help out should any more problems arise. Sometimes it is just a matter of dotting the t's and so on. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 00:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rayeesuddin

• User: Rayeesuddin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: steady vandalism. uploading copyvios and private images, self-promotion. Same user as User:Mrayeesuddin, could you take care of that account too and delete the files? Thank you!

Indeedous (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Done - Both blocked and Confirmed Rayeesuddin is a sock of Mrayeesuddin. Эlcobbola _talk 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Vergiotisa

Resolved

• User: Vergiotisa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user keeps on tagging as copyvio a file previously nominated for deletion and kept. This file has obviously no copyright problem. The problem he has with this file is related to nationalistic POV-pushing. BrightRaven (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This file does not qualify for speedy-deletion. Pleas start a regular DR. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked one day for edit warring. Эlcobbola _talk 16:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I've unblocked with time served as user acknowledges issues and has resolved not to continue. Let me know if there are further issues. Эlcobbola _talk 17:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

BrightRaven

Resolved

• User: BrightRaven (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Vandalism - this user refuses to understand that the previous nomination was for spam and not for copyright. This is a NEW NOMINATION and the appropriate copyright proof has been attached- The problem he has with this file is related to nationalistic POV-pushing

Vergiotisa (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done No vandalism; retaliatory request - see above. Эlcobbola _talk 16:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiGuy Rulez

Resolved

• User: WikiGuy Rulez (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Personal attack on my user page & talk page --Shujenchang (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Account has been locked globally by a steward due to cross-wiki vandalism. --Glaisher (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked locally as well. Эlcobbola _talk 17:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Chanpokwan

Resolved

• User: Chanpokwan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Uploading copyrighted posters

Piastu (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Uploads deleted & user blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dickmuncher102

Resolved

• User: Dickmuncher102 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Offensive username and vandalism-only account; uploaded trolling images here and used them to vandalize Enwiki. I've already blocked the account over there. Acalamari 09:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Blocked, images deleted. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ankit2909

Resolved

• User: Ankit2909 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Multiple copy violations, first upload was deleted, now he's uploading further copy protected content.

NiTenIchiRyu (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done User warned, images deleted. Yann (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

臏臏

Pending

• User: 臏臏 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting:

re: File:Cyx.jpg

this is the first contact I could find. Wikipedia is sometimes too bureaucratic. I tried to change the photo page but instead I inadvertently made this Bin bin "William Nettles, Los Angeles"

I am the author (photographer) of the photo on this page. Under Author is 臏臏 bin bin (no translation even in google translates. I don't know enough Chinese to figure it out. I am not 臏臏 I am William Nettles, Los Angeles.

My photo credit is correct on the main article page: en:Chin Gee Hee It's just when you go to the photo page.

I've donated photography in the past to libraries, schools, historical organizations, and Wikipedia. Nothing stops those contributions quicker than missing credit or mis-credit.

Thanks, Will Nettles, aka WillN2 WillN2 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you uploaded this image to en.wikipedia under the account w:User:WillNettX [62] and added it to en:Chin Gee Hee [63] and the above user later uploaded it to Commons [64] causing your original to be deleted. An en.wiki admin should look at the deleted image [65] to maybe confirm authorship and fix the source/author info here. I see @Jmabel: was involved with that aricle, so maybe they can help here. INeverCry 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The original on en-wiki had "Photo credit: William Nettles". You should feel free to edit that on the image here on Commons as a correction. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

84.77.59.230

Resolved

• User: 84.77.59.230 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Nominates File:Mercedes-Benz 310 D-GAN Brandweer Duik-assistentie pic1.JPG for deletion with reason: mjghriwuhnn3u9ojjgdirunvsda

Stunteltje (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Only one time, I think just warning will be enough. (I have fixed template, so it can be substituted.) —레비Revi 12:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) | Marking as resolved,(if he comes back and continue, change resolved template to pending) —레비Revi 12:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Superyaw

Resolved

• User: Superyaw (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Porn spammer. Already warned regarding copyright violations. His recently uploaded files are most likely not "own work" (some of them have watermarks).

Schniggendiller (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 1 week. --Alan ^(talk) 23:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Gianfranco Piscitelli

Resolved

• User: Gianfranco Piscitelli (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: This user is overwriting File:Simón Bolívar 2.jpg --The Photographer (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Photographer (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User warned & uploads hidden (possible copyright violation) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kalvasflamoff

Resolved

• User: Kalvasflamoff (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: All of his recent uploads (new user) have a figure of a fat guy without shirt on it. I reverted his editions at pt:Wikipedia, I believe the images should be removed as well. Please verify, because I'm not sure of the procedures at commons in such case.
• File:Vienna circle 1.jpg
• File:Paulo africa.jpg
• File:Viva arte chico cesar.png
• File:Ativista da black bloc.jpg
• File:Rolezinho shoping leblon.jpg

ZackTheJack (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Warned and uploads tagged. Эlcobbola _talk 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Quochuy

Resolved

• User: Quochuy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Copyvio uploading

Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User blocked for one week. JurgenNL (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

JuTa

Resolved

• User: JuTa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: He has destroyed usefulness of the file Franzius Unterweser 1407 px, 36 minutes after its nomination for deletion, before the discussion about the deletion had really begun. That's the same or even worse than destroying the content during current discussion.--

Ulamm (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot see any vandalism here. Please wait until the DR is closed. --A.Savin 10:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

JuTa had abolished the presentation of the map, so that the "gallery" only consisted of the call for deletion.

I've restored the useful version which shows the map. But you can see JuTa's action in the history.--Ulamm (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

JuTa’s “vandalism” consisted of adding a colon to a page pending a DR, which Ulamm restored, cluelessly arguing that such a page (which simply displays an image in full resolution) has justifiable usefulness. JuTa doesn’t need this kind of thankless harassment; I have seen three-day blocks for much less. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

By JuTa's change, the file had lost its function, see Kaganer's version and JuTa's version.--Ulamm (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The file didn't loose it's function at all, it still exists. The file just doesn't need a gallery dedicated to it. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

By some browsers this graphic is not available in full resolution from ist mother file. Therefore the presentation file is necessary. Even if it were not necessary, nobody is allowed to delete the function of any file, while the deletion is discussed.--Ulamm (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

They didn't delete anything!!! You don't even know what you're talking about. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"You don't even know what you're talking about" → Please return to the basic rules of mutual respect!

Deleting the function of a (HTML-)file is almost as destructive as deleting the file. The visitor led to such a spoiled file does not get the information the author has prepared it for.--Ulamm (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

---

See also

• User_talk:Rotatebot#File:Franzius_Unterweser.jpg
• File talk:Franzius Unterweser.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Franzius Unterweser 1407 px
• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#JuTa

FYI: Moved to userspace. —레비Revi 18:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Betodec30

Resolved

• User: Betodec30 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: All his/her uploads are copy.vio. (and all of the same person, perhaps also the same photos).

Stegop (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. INeverCry 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Baluba 01

Resolved

• User: Baluba 01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: All his uploads are copyvio. Some examples:

• Original file uploaded 2013-03-28 by Immanuel Giel: File:Abendliches-Rheinufer-Mannheim-03.JPG
  • Same file with some additional contrast, uploaded by Baluba 01, 2014-02-25: File:The University of Mannheim campus seen from the Ludwigshafen shore- 2014-02-25 20-23.jpg
• Original file uploaded 2013-03-28 by Immanuel Giel: File:Abendliches-Rheinufer-Mannheim-06.JPG
  • Same file with some additional saturation and contrast, uploaded by Baluba 01, 2014-02-25: File:University of Mannheim 02 2014-02-25 20-54.jpg
• Original file: File:Mannheimer-Schloss-von-Walzmuehle.JPG
  • Stolen file: File:University of Mannheim 04 2014-02-25 20-56.jpg
• Original file uploaded in 2009 by PQ3: File:Jesuitenkirche West.jpg
  • Stolen file uploaded by Baluba 01 File:Jesuitenkirche at UMA's campus 2014-03-01 12-23.jpg
• Original file uploaded 2006-07-17 by Immanuel Giel: File:Schloss Mannheim 10.jpg
  • Stolen file uploaded by Baluba 01 File:University of Mannheim 01 2014-02-25 20-53.jpg
• File:Mannheim Palace that hosts the University of Mannheim (UMA)- 2014-02-25 19-11.jpg: [66]

Please also have a look at uploads by Mataneur, connected to the University of Mannheim as well. File:Ernst-Ludwig von Thadden.jpg is an official press photo [67] [68]; File:Eduard Gaugler.jpg can be found on the internet as well [69]. Sitacuisses (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Baluba 01" has already re-uploaded two of the files Deniss deleted today: File:University of Mannheim campus.jpg (formerly File:The University of Mannheim campus seen from the Ludwigshafen shore- 2014-02-25 20-23.jpg) and File:The University of Mannheim at Night 2014-03-02 10-45.jpg (formerly File:Mannheim Palace that hosts the University of Mannheim (UMA)- 2014-02-25 19-11.jpg). --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Another account with dubious uploads related to the University of Mannheim is User:MamaBarcadi. I added the "no permission" template to her/his files. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Likely I've blocked Baluba 01, Mataneur, MamaBarcadi, and WolfgangBo1975, as these 4 accounts look very likely to be connected per CU and behavior. INeverCry 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sharmaviewstop

I have indef-blocked Sharmaviewstop (talk · contribs), as he — despite warnings — went on to upload manipulated images of women, mostly in potentially embarrassing views/situations. He copied the underlying images from all over the web and in these images he replaced (photoshopped) the woman's face by the face of another woman (always the same one), likely with intent to smear or attack this woman. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Punjab sharmaviews.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: I've also blocked the sleeper acct Sharmaviews. INeverCry 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo

Resolved

• User: Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Copyfraudster claiming rights for public domain images [70], furthermore falsifying image description — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1205:5057:31d0:2c2e:227b:acb7:39dd (talk • contribs)

Please try to discuss with Arctic Kangaroo. And then if it is not resolved and need admin attention, please go to COM:AN/U. — Revi_complaint? 15:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the unsubstantiated and completely inappropriate legal threat by 2a02:1205:5057:31d0:2c2e:227b:acb7:39dd from Arctic Kangaroo's talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 2A02:1205:5057:31D0:0:0:0:0/64. INeverCry 19:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please enlighten me: in what way are the edits by both IP's to be considered as vandalism; and - above all - what does justify a block of the whole range (sic!) for the duration of not less than 3 months? Thanks in advance --A.Savin 20:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This editor was reverted several times here, and then made the inappropriate post at AK's talk and then this post here which seems spurious. As for the rangeblock, an IPv6 rangeblock is much different and more targeted than an IPv4 rangeblock. This /64 block is likely to only affect this one user per CU results. I've shortened it to 2 weeks, as the original 3 month time length may have been too long. INeverCry 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks--A.Savin 20:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mareike Fuchs

Resolved

• User: Mareike Fuchs (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: All Uploads are copyright-violations. She uploaded the pictures under CCby3.0de License which is obviously not correct. Emergency doc (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Ortenau Klinikum Schaubild Teilentfernung Bauchspeicheldruese.jpg contains an OTRS tag for this source, I'll ask at COM:OTRS/N to check the tag, it may be valid for the other images as well. --Denniss (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I had a look into that OTRS-Ticket. It is just about that certain file.--Emergency doc (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DR was started, so it looks like resolved. @Emergency doc: Dateien werden gelöscht wenn er innerhalb einer Woche keine Freigabe für die Uploads Sendet. lg--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Lulyyy b

Resolved

• User: Lulyyy b (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Replacing pics of people with copyvios

Lenin and McCarthy (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning seems be enough, I think. If continue, replace resolved to pending. — Revi_complaint? 03:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Resolved

User:188.103.87.251, User:Spacken1234 and User:Deinemadda. It's most likely that they belong to the same person. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe COM:RFCU. — Revi_complaint? 10:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked by A.Savin. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr VladKor

Resolved

• User: Mr VladKor (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Keeps on uploading copyvio despite of warning.

BrightRaven (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

80.171.36.148

Pending

• User: 80.171.36.148 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: For vandalism, reverting changes of other users regularly, calls other users as Nazis Link. This guy is editing on Commons for months (only) with different IPs (sure for certain reasons), so it's hard to block him permanently. Also he replaces German place names from German descriptions. Jonny84 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonny84 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like he has a long-running issue with User:Tohma. As for blocking him, if he's that much of a problem, a softblock of the /16 looks to me like it would only affect this one user. I only see evidence of this one IP editor on that range in the past month. I couldn't check further back due to edit volume limiting the tool's function, but I doubt a full 3 month check would've turned up anything different. A 1 month anon-only block of 80.171.0.0/16 could be put in place if needed, and go from there. INeverCry 16:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Corotscudcorotscud

Resolved

• User: Corotscudcorotscud (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: repeated vandalism at VP.

Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Locally blocked by A.Savin, and "21:59:56 <@StewardBot> Bsadowski1 locked global account Corotscudcorotscud with the following comment: Vandalism-only account: Crosswiki vandalism" — Revi_complaint? 13:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism in 2 files

Hello, I am afraid user Marcus Cyron is vandalizing two files I uploaded. They were incorrectly renamed and I requested their original names restored. The user keeps removing my request with reasons that do not meet the necessary criteria at COM:RENAME. I respectfully request an administrator to stop him from removing my request and undoing the file rename as it does not meet the necessary criteria. Thank you in advance.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

See down under. I am doing my admin work. Insted requesting a second opinion, the user starts an edit war. To say I'm doing vandalism because I decline a renaming is an impudence - and I see this as an personal insult. So please an admin also talks about these things to hin. Not with the head through the wall instead of requesting a second opinion and not insulting people only because they are doing their work. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not. The files were wrongly renamed as they do not meet any of the necessary criteria at COM:RENAME. They should have never been renamed so their names should be restored. You mentioned reasons such as "the file was for month under the english name. Maybe the renaming was not needed - but now it was for a longer time. And english is much more usable for the most people. And the theme is not one, were spanish is really needed" which directly contradict the rules (2. Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized (Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages).) or "but now there IS a newer name - and the newer name is simply better", which is simply your opinion and does not meet any of the 7 accepted criteria. I am sorry but this is not doing admin work. Admin work means applying the rules, in this case those in COM:RENAME. The vandalism here is the removal of my request with no valid reasons, not my restoration of my request. I do not need any second opinions to request a wrong renaming being undone. It is the rejection of the request that must be justified with COM:RENAME. This is not the case so far.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't talk about the renaming here. If you think I'm not right you can ask for a second opinion. We talk about your edit war against an adminstrative decision. And only you don't like my reason does not means, the reason ist not valid! Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about your wrong removal of my request with reasons that do not meet any of the necessary criteria and in one case (see above) directly contradicts the rules that apply in when renaming a file. I do not need a second opinion to correct something that is wrong. You should have checked the rules before removing my request and, when pointed to the incorrect reasons, left them in place so that the names can be restored. You did not so I have no choice but to restore it as you keep deleting it.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)23:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Due to the "warnings" of this user I have to request again the intervention of an administrator to prevent the vandalism of my request that has been unjustifiably removed.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)23:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So, I don't accept this longer. I request a penalty against Rowanwindwhistler for again calling my decision "vandalism". I think I am right - but even not, it is not vandalism. I don't see, that I have to let me insult this way. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And I request your admin powers to judge on renaming removed on your clearly inadequate knowledge of the rules that apply. I have requested the famous second opinion while you keep using your admin powers to apply your wrong decision. Meanwhile it remains to be seen if you can back your opinion with something more than a personal opinion (but now there IS a newer name - and the newer name is simply better) or something that goes against the rules (the file was for month under the english name. Maybe the renaming was not needed - but now it was for a longer time. And english is much more usable for the most people. And the theme is not one, were spanish is really needed). If you do have them, stop vandalising my request using your admin powers and state your reasons in the my request. You are not being insulted, you are being exposed as an unworthy administrator from my point of view. And I have stated my reasons. Sad to see indeed...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Rowanwindwhistler

User requestes the renaming of File:First Red Guards in Petrograd, fall 1917 palace square.jpg and File:Milan Nedić 1934.jpg. I declined the renaming and gave my causes for doing this. since the first request he reverted my decision 3 times. I told him at his talk Page he should stop this or I have to report him here. I also told him, if he think my decision is incorret, he should request for a second opinion. But he only revert and revert and revert. Please a second admin tell hin, that this is not the right way. And if he don't stop, a second admin should provide consequences. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He now rollbacked me a 4th time! Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've advised this editor to take this to dispute resolution and stop edit-warring. I don't rule out removal of the rollback right or blocking if the lesson is not taken, but a rename request, once ruled on, should not be replaced in an Admin-shopping exercise. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to user Rodhullandemu for my last note that was incorrectly addressed to him. I will open a request in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems as suggested but I must say I consider the rejection of a request with reasons that do not meet the rules (see above) a misuse of admin powers. I hope that meanwhile my request will remain, till the request in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems in solved with adequate reasons (I will certainly express mine and I hope any others will have something else to say beyond "I am an admin"). If my restoration of names is rejected there with reasons that as among the 7 valid ones, I will duly apologize.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fry1989

• User: Fry1989 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Revert war without reasons against official references. Talking and warning has no results. File:Coat of Arms of the First Slovak Republic.svg; File:P05 CZ.svg (all ref on the file desc.) A blocked file is also in the wrong version here File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg. Perhelion (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've explained clearly why File:Coat of Arms of the First Slovak Republic.svg should be the way it is. The file rendition you keep reverting to (which would mean you are edit warring too, btw) is not symmetrical and it has improper strokes. My file is symmetrical and therefore is superior. The same issue arises with File:P05 CZ.svg, if you compare the two versions (1 and 2) you can see that I have fixed the file by removing these stange silver borders that don't belong. Both files in question here I have corrected and made superior.

As for File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg, that file has been in peace for a significant amount of time and the current protected version has the support of many users. So far no other users have been complaining about the protected state of the file, and Perhelion is incapable of providing any reasoning to change the file now that excludes making it all about me and how I'm wrong.

All in all, this is a storm in a teacup and Perhelion is just being a trouble maker bringing up old issues that don't matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Perhelion was admonished last year for personal attacks where they made it clear they do not like me as a user and consider me a troll, and these remarks came to such a level that I was forced to demand an IB which Perhelion agreed to. I consider this bringing up old issues that have long settled and been forgotten, as well as these recent remarks about me to be a violation of that IB. I believe Perhelion should be blocked for violating the IB they agreed to. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It is clear, that Perhelion violated interaction ban with Fry. Last year was stated clearly, that such violation means block. I blocked Perhelion for a month. Taivo (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to the decision: Link. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you consider that the user was never blocked before? One, or maybe two weeks are enough for calming down… remember we do not punish users. Apart from that, it is also difficult for me not saying anything about Fry1989's attitude and their famous way to solve conflicts. Das würde er mir nur auf's Butterbrot schmieren, sollte ich wirklich einmal Bedarf sehen irgendwas zu unternehmen, das ihm nicht in den Kram passt. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And just what is my "famous way to solve conflicts"?? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I considered, that he has never been blocked before. And I considered, that he created complaining in Administrators' noticeboard towards the user he was prohibited to interact, using dubious reasons (I looked the files, which created the quarrel). Any other breach of interaction ban resulted a shorter block. Also I considered blocking Fry for short period, but ... not this time. Taivo (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to go deeper into this right now but since I think this decision is deeply unfair I do not want to waste any time and quickly voice my opinion (I might go a bit more in depth as soon as I get to it). So from what I saw Fry1989's attitude towards Perhelion was at least as hostile as the other way round in this dispute – in my opinion even more hostile (and now he even personally attacks me below which clearly expresses his attitude towards an productive outcome of this mess, but this seems to be OK on AN nowadays). From what I get (more clarity for the exact block reasons wouldn't do any harm Taivo) the only reason for the block is that you blame Perhelion for breaking an "interaction ban"(For what it's worth I didn't even know that such a stupid thing even existed until yesterday, I unsuccessfully searched for the help/project page where the terms of such an interaction ban are stated and I unsuccessfully tried to get from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_35#User:Fry1989] where Perhelion accepted such an "IB" and what the exact terms of this particular IB where – How can an IB be even considered valid under such conditions?). While Perhelion might have initiated an interaction by the protected edit request linked above, and while his wording might have been non-optimal, I have to say that I totally concur with his motives. Except Fry1989 nobody prefers the non-stroked variant of e.g. File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg and also in the other cases it seems Perhelion was right: It's mostly the personal opinion of Fry1989 which he tries to enforce, which leads to escalation of the situation and edit warring. A proper discussion on the issue from any party – which would be the only solution to the underlying dispute – has not taken place so far and is even prevented by the decision to close the issue by blocking Perhelion.
In summary I don't see why Perhelion should be punished (it clearly is punishing in this case; a block of one month for a user who was never blocked before can't mean anything else; the message is clear even if it might not have been intended) while Fry1989 isn't. Fry1989 has responded to the interaction without hesitation and in a hostile manner which made it foreseeable for the dispute to end up on AN again. If you really want to nitpick by stating that Perhelion initiated the interaction I can only say that this is a sad example of Wikilawyering which doesn't help anybody in the end... Oh, and @Taivo: You considered blocking Fry for short period, but ... not this time.? You have to explain this sentence to me. How I understand it you refrained from blocking Fry1989 because... he was already blocked many times before? Very strange reasoning, if you ask me. --Patrick87 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you would take the time to go through that AN where I requested an IB, you would find that while both Perhelion and I had transgressions, they were overwhelmingly on the side of Perhelion. That user completely despises me and everything I do here. I am actually trying to shake off my previous blocks (which is rather difficult with people like you who aren't willing to give me the chance), and I'm reducing my contributions as part of that. I didn't attack you at all, I attacked your theory of "they both have to be blocked just to be fair". We both agreed to that IB, and who broke it? Who went out of their way to name me in an editprotection request? Who decided to revert files exactly one year to the day which I highly doubt is coincidence? Oh and another thing, before you comment on the issue of File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg, you might really want to think and do research before you make a statement like "nobody likes the non-stroked variant and Fry is enforcing his opinion" because many users agreed with me. You're right, you don't have time to go deeper into this because if you did you would be saying very different things. So either take the time to do the research, or don't comment at all. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't read the AN in any more detail than I did: It's hostile and I won't waste my time to upset myself by digging through personal and offending disputes any more than necessary to get an impartial impression of the dispute. Show me the edit where Perhelion agreed to an IB and show me the policy where it is defined what an "interaction" is made of. As long as nobody can provide it I assess the issue with common sense.
Regarding the given example (File:Coat of arms of Brazil.svg) when I look at the file's history I see five users in favor of the stroked version (Tonyjeff,Giro720, Matheus S, Perhelion and Joaopaulo1511). Also the Brazilian government provides this version [71]. If I look at the talk page of the file the only previous mention (why is there no real discussion going on when an edit war is apparent on the front page?) of strokes is by Giro720 who seems to try to arbitrate by saying that they would not necessarily be required, but recommends to keep at least some strokes. So in conclusion the only one in favor of the non-stroked version is clearly you Fry1989, if you like it or not! --Patrick87 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Actually I just noticed that, that also Rillke comes to the exact same conclusion as I do on the files talk page – hardly a coincidence. I also noticed Fry1989 directly blaming him for "being an ally recycling arguments" and being "biased and hardly a neutral voice in the matter". Surely not a nice way to treat other editors... --Patrick87 (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are not going to read it in it's entirety then don't comment like you understand the issue fully and pass judgments on who did what and who was worse! Height of foolishness to pretend one knows everything but "oh, I don't have the time to read it" first. You're wasting everyone's time in that case. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I read enough to understand this issue. I don't have to dig through all your previous foolishness in all detail to see a common denominator here. By being hostile against me by calling me a fool and discounting all arguments against your position by obscure reasons you only confirm my impression of the case. Good night, --Patrick87 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to read the whole thing because you don't need to see all my foolishness, you're also not seeing the whole picture of Perhelion's foolishness, so you really do not understand the issue at all. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

When you come in support of a user who was just blocked and use the exact same wording as them, it sure makes you look like an ally and a recycler, whether you think it's "nice" of me to point it out or not. And seriously, why don't you think before you speak? If all these users all think it's wrong and I'm wrong and I'm the only one on my side of the issue, why was the file protected the way it was? More importantly, why have none of these other users disputed the protection, or formed a consensus to have it changed? Why is the only user bringing this up Perhelion, and why are they only doing so now? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe think yourself, too, unfriendly pal... If multiple people have the same arguments against your position it might be that those arguments are just valid and logical and that those people got to their personal opinion independently? Why the file was protected in the current version? I don't know, ask the protecting Admin Odder, he hasen't spoken on the case so we can't predict his motives. Why nobody else disputed the protection? Maybe because they do not care enough to waste their time to convince a stubborn editor and just move on in contrast to dedicated editors like you and Perhelion? Good night, --Patrick87 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Patrick87, I don't care if you really do think it's all my fault, whether you are Perhelion's best friend or even his brother, there's no way you can defend this. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not deny that Perhelion and I are both dedicated contributors. What I will say is that I have been dedicated on my own for a year without even thinking of Perhelion or old fights with them, but they clearly haven't forgotten me. I could have been dedicated for another good year without going back to some obscure forgotten disputes a year later and say "Oh this is all Perhelion's fault, let's change it now!". One user here hasn't let go. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

---

COM:AGF - I hope such a thing will not happen again... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Block of Perhelion

I just noticed Perhelion's block because I had his talk page on my watchlist by chance. Since I'm not involved in the actual dispute in any kind I suspect my opinion to be quite impartial. From skimming through the last edits of both parties I can't understand why Perhelion should be blocked when Fry1989 isn't. They both acted in a stupid way by useless edit warring; therefore I'd blame them both for the same amount.

If you think it is necessary to block Perhelion you'd also have to block Fry1989. If one has broken an IB so clearly has the other. Everything else would be unjustly. However in my opinion it would be much more expedient not to block anybody. Both Perhelion and Fry1989 contribute very good work and from my personal experience it's only human that people who are dedicated to their work have also differences at times. A ban won't resolve the underlying dispute nor will it be of any use for the community.

I hereby request to undo the ban and to resolve the dispute in a more appropriate way (preferably by third opinions on the files in question). --Patrick87 (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"If you block one you have to block the other, they both broke it"? WTF kind of diplomatic nonsense is that? We both agreed to that IB, but Perhelion initiated the interaction by directly mentioning me in a editprotection request and tried to make it all about how wrong I am. I was forced to react to it. I would have been perfectly fine for another year without any interaction had Perhelion let bygones be bygones. And let's also not forget the whole reason I demanded an IB so strongly in the first place was because Perhelion was constantly attacking me (I provided a list of some of the worst), something they have resumed. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WTF, which stands for What the FUCK is not really kind. One could perform better, more professional. Perhaps not if one is upset but in this case, drink a mint tea. That seems to be commonly used by commons admins to treat their mood… -- Rillke^(q?) 17:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's harsh language, but I will not apologize. I literally had to troll my way through AN repeatedly screaming as loud as I could demanding an IB to finally get admins to pay attention and see why I wanted one so bad. Perhelion attacked me constantly and mercilessly, and if you have read all those attacks littered around Commons at that time you would understand why I had HAD IT! They attacked my edits, they attacked me as a person, they attacked whether or not I had a right to be on Commons, they claimed my sanity was in dispute, they went out of their way to attack me twice in a DR I filed even though they agreed with my nomination reasoning, they reverted my file uploads without proper reasonings or trying to discuss them with me first, they followed me around all over the place and drove me bananas with impunity until I had collected all of these attacks and said "Look, I will not take this anymore, I am tired of being targeted, give me an IB!". And after it was granted, I have had a wonderful year of non-issue with Perheliom, until now, where they couldn't help themselves and let old fights be forgotten. They deliberately reverted two files that have been safe and stable for exactly 1 year (I find the exactness of the date in itself to show some calculation and bad faith motivation), and created an editprotection request in which their reasoning was that I'm a bad user and I'm wrong. They still have a problem with me, they still are trying to make me look bad, and then I get told that I should be blocked too just for the fairness of it all. That meets my definition of "WTF" indeed. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, I am hardly revelling in Perhelion being blocked, as I have had nothing to do with them in a good long time. I would even stick my neck out and give support to them being unblocked per their request, but I want to see some good faith. I want to see Perhelion once and for all renounce their dislike and distrust of me as a motivation for any of their interactions with me. I want Perhelion to once and for all renounce using my name as a reason (ie: "Fry is a bad user", "Fry is wrong", "it's only Fry's personal tastes") to revert files or ask for files to be changed or oppose DRs or unDRs or discussions or anything else I'm involved in. I never again want to see Perhelion attack me as a person, or my sanity, or my compatibility with Commons, or whether I'm a good user or a bad user. Instead, after all this time apart after that IB was finally granted, Perhelion appears to have slipped right back into their old ways of dealing with any possible dispute they might have with me. That is not a good sign, so for now I won't be sticking my neck out. The block should stay. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989's post above strikes me as clearly violating the interaction ban between him and Perhelion. I have asked Fry to respect the ban, and warned him that violations of the ban may lead to him being blocked.[72] --Avenue (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Unblock request granted: Too long block. User was never blocked before. (fyi: Fry1989 has broken the IB too.) With a lot of COM:AGF... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Future of this IB

I'm sorry but the above closure leaves an open question, what is the future of this IB? Is it considered expired, still in effect, amended? That should be clarified if Steinsplitter "hopes this doesn't happen again". Fry1989 ^eh? 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The IB is still in effect (Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker.) --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion you should both stop making your content disputes to personal disputes. Discuss objectively and base your arguments on valid sources. Reverting should never be an option. Instead discuss differences on the files talk page and accept majority decisions. Edit summaries like "nonsense" are unacceptable! If both parties remind themselves constantly of these suggestions (although I know it will be hard) and abstain to enforce their personal opinion I believe constructive collaboration will be possible.
In my personal opinion an IB is pure nonsense. Forbidding interaction will not solve any problems but might only create new ones and will for sure make it impossible to solve old conflicts (as apparent from the current case). --Patrick87 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think I tried that? Demanding an IB was the absolute last resort when it became absolutely clear the two of us were unable to work together in any capacity without mistrust and personal attacks, which you would know if you would tke the time to read the whole thing which you consider just "foolishness". Perhelion does not like me, and I don't exactly have a high opinion of them either, but when someone calls you an "egomaniac" that pretty much suggests being able to work with them is out of the question. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Although you're constantly suggesting I did not dig enough in your past disputes despite I did quite a lot (which I regard as a violation of COM:AGF and which is no ground for a constructive discussion) I'm actually aware that you both are kind of "incompatible". However I'm afraid that there is no reasonable way for you both to work on the same topics without interacting. An IB won't solve you problems. None of you will simply go away. Therefore you have to arrange somehow. What I'm trying is to offer you a possibility to do so which will work if both of try as hard as you can.
Limit your interaction to the bare minimum, that's OK. As soon as a dispute is discernible, reach out for third opinions instead of fighting yourselves to death and let others decide for you. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in chasing Perhelion around, reverting their edits and calling them names, I just want to do my work. If they can abide by that too, then there should be no further need for an IB. If they can not, that's a different question. It depends on whether or not Perhelion is willing to let go of the past, all of it; the name calling, the mistrust, the constant reverting, the constant opposition, the constant questioning of whether I should even be on Commons or not, and most of all the questioning of my sanity. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That last sentence goes well beyond what is acceptable here. I have blocked Fry1989 (for three days) for again violating their interaction ban. --Avenue (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

While I didn't like Fry1989's last comment either (it had a more than accusing "overtone" in it) I think we were just at the point where we might have made some progress on the issue. Actually the whole point of this section is to clarify if an interaction ban should still be considered active (and which the actual terms were if it should stay in place). I don't know if this block is wise under these circumstances (there's still enough time to block either of the opponents in the future if they can't deal peacefully with each other). I'd have favored resolving the open questions know (and maybe turn a blind eye) but enforce any terms which will be negotiated with all necessary hardship afterwards. --Patrick87 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see Fry's last comment as "dealing peacefully" with the other party. The ban is still in effect until clearly rescinded, and neither party should be venting their feelings about the other anywhere on Commons. I see no need to put the ban on hold while it is being discussed, and I think turning a blind eye to violations now would be counterproductive. --Avenue (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Since somebody linked en:WP:BANEX somewhere else I'd have interpreted this whole section as an exception to the interaction ban according to the second bullet point. If some "venting" helps to calm the differences between Fry1989 and Perhelion I think it should be allowed as long as it's happening in the "controlled environment" AN offers us. Otherwise nothing will ever change between the two and I don't this is a desirable outcome.
As stated above I have a very low opinion of IBs anyway and I don't know why we even accept those on Commons when there is no accepted policy anywhere which would describe the terms of an IB. I also don't think an IB is easily applicable on Commons for two editors working in the same field. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Many words are said and I just take the chance to say thanks to all to spend a bit time for the respect and the right of users to solve a conflict and to prevent future conflicts and this way for the civil work of Commons (I learned much English here and used much special words the first time). I agree Patrick in all words here and I do not knew an IB before and then concretely. Patrick and I, we know us only (volatile) as guys who loves edit, create and improve graphics so in this way yes we are "brothers". The only solution to end this conflict and end future conflicts is the rule to accept references (if applicable and available). That is what an Graphist and a Wikipedian has to know to be rational here. I am willing to dissolve the IB, if he apologizes and accept this all. And I would say (again as a year ago) I'm sorry for my insults, if he does the same for his/me (even though I probably do not understand every insult, since I'm not familiar with the language, and he argued about me). But that would includes last but not least this File:P05 CZ.svg and as real sign of "good will" removing this gallery: User:Fry1989/Gallery/Road Signs/Czech Republic which you has included and replaced for "my files" (and several other users) which can be called a revert "after the IB", in several places (and if we take (2)IPs that more than this files worked related to you also in the articles here and on Wikipedia). Incidentally what I must say additional negative about this gallery is the fact, that this are copies (and some seems exact) of existing SVGs, although a greater improvement would have been to convert the many (more than half) remaining JPGs in SVG (of the Road signs of the Czech Republic) although it is easy to create new SVG... if you know what I mean. If this is allowed to say, that should be no devaluation or insult, that's my proposal to solve the issue and for the hopefully peace. What do you say (perhaps it is better to take a little extra time)? PS. I'm regardless for punishment. Errors must be possible corrected so also my can correct in a civil way. In one all to play togehther her is only possible in a civil way. Thanks --Perhelion (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Second question is how the IB would be reacting in the future. I'm a bit confused there, since somebody linked en:WP:IBAN somewhere else I'd have interpreted above mentioned "Czech Road Signs" as an violation to an interaction ban according to the 4. bullet point. But this is only "quite ridiculous" (after an answer from the admin which had given the IB. I would be a bit unlucky to call his name directly)? I mean also the generally argumentation "hurricane/storm in a teacup" and "waste of time" is therefore somewhat unfortunate (respectively interchangeable) in this context (but actually always). What I do a bit rude simply understand as, go away, more argumentation is not needed, problem solved. Or it means simply all in all it is unimportant, what can not be because oneself would do unimportant work, so the other must do unimportant work!? But it can't be unimportant, alone because of it's the principle. If we that don`t accept, there is no basis to work together and the fruit forever new and more and more conflicts... --Perhelion (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

All the files on User:Fry1989/Gallery/Road Signs/Czech Republic I recreated myself based on a Czech State document without using any of Perhelion's files. This is sourced and linked (although the link is now dead) on each file. If Perhelion wants to revert File:P05 CZ.svg then go ahead, I will simply upload my version separately which I should have done in the first place. However, I fail to see how creating my own versions of the Czech road signs is a violation of the IB. Am I not allowed to upload a work if Perhelion has already uploaded a seemingly similar work? I'm extremely enthusiastic about road signs, that's clear by the fact I've uploaded and catalogued thousands and thousands from dozens of different countries. When I have state documents at my disposal, I use them, this is hardly a targeted move in any way. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats the question. I mean a copy in the way of redundant duplicates. Why duplicates (that includes the files that you have overwritten), to be exact, why black strokes???

Here is your source: http://www.nobe.cz/Files/Soubory/znacky.pdf

By the way you have not answered why you have made exactly that SVG where which already are SVG on Commons, although four times as many JPG are still without. Thats seems a mystical fortuity? (this also I mean falls under the concept copy)

What is this: File:Czech Republic road sign A 32a.svg vs File:CZ-A32a Výstražný kříž pro železniční přejezd jednokolejný.svg?

I'll not say that you have not in certain fields some qualities. --Perhelion (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not like duplicates either. To answer your question, the reason I uploaded the signs myself is because the files were were not symmetrical, so I redrew the warning triangle so that they now are symmetrical. I also cropped the signs so there is as little blank space around them as possible. As for the black stroke border vs a silver/grey one, it doesn't really make much difference to me, black just is more common. Another reason I uploaded the signs the way I did is so they follow the common naming convention I have been trying to propose. I could have over-written all the signs, but since several of them were your uploads it may raise some eyebrows. I also could have renamed them all to match the naming convention since I have file-mover rights, but that also may have caused issues. Those are the reasons why I uploaded them separately. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)