This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've blocked this one. Over the past couple days we've had a bunch of attacks on Geagea and Hanay from Israeli ranges. If 185.3.146.0/24 keeps up, I could try out a week or so rangeblock. The other 46.19.83.0/24, 46.19.84.0/23, 46.19.85.0/24, and 46.19.86.0/24 ranges where the attacks on Gia and Hanay have come from are mobile ranges, but a short rangeblock of those might be feasible if absolutely necessary. INeverCry19:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you INeverCry. This is User:יעל י that was blocked indefinitely in Hebrew wikipedia and was declared as a troll. Now she his here try to harassing me and vandalized pictures. Hanay (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
5.22.130.108
Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Oh dears, you are perfectly right! Please block also me. (I have more than 1000 users). Or maybe you want to ask WHY. Some other time... Elad34 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Blocked in deWP (by me) because of harassment and bashing of classmates. Only contributions here are uploads to illustrate this pages. Please block indefinitely and use Special:Nuke for his files. Thanks. --Schniggendiller (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved
User: (username removed)
Reasons for reporting: REASON.This is abusive user name against me. This is also User:יעל י that was blocked. please also hide the name. thanks Hanay (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Thank you for blocking her. But the page with the abusive name is still exists. So the problem is not resolved completely. Could you please delete the talk page and the user page and protect it. She is doing it so this page will be found in google search. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: REASON. This IP (it keeps changing) is once again going through image files and destroying the indexing which sorts images into categories and ties images of the same object together. It is clear that it is malicious because the behaviour comes each time from a new IP. Is it possible to do a block revert? Would I be permitted to do that?
Because I have spent many hours with this IP on previous occasions fixing these things properly and asking (him) to cease and desist and as you can see without success. As the IP is giving me lots of pain and acting quite thoughtlessly I thought a little pain as a reward might be appropriate. He carefully deletes my edits, I don't care about the edits you mention, just about the IP removing my hard-won information (as used in my edits). Fixing to leave in the edits you mention would take a very long time. OK? Angrily but not with Taivo, Eddaido (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I sense doubt. The year of manufacturer and (where necessary) licence plate number I add to the sort function on individual images means they are viewed within that category in order of year manufactured and, where there is more than one image of the same car, the licence plate groups them together. I have no objection at all to the IP adding the image to, say Category:1940 automobiles. I do strongly object to the apparently targeted removal of my sort codes. Yes it is possible for a reader to not understand what they are or why they are there but to simply remove them without reference to anyone else is surely vandalism.
I have just found you have blocked that particular IP. Thank you. Do I have to do the reinstatements one by one? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would be better to categorize the cars per year also (or at least not to remove these categories). Taivo (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realize, that you asked rollbacker rights that way. You must speak more straightforward to me. Taivo (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Steinsplitter. Thank you Taivo, I did not realise that was what I was asking for, I just hoped someone might be able to help. My best wishes to you both, Eddaido (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Federico Bravo 60
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: another spam-only account using commons as a soapbox. this is a book cover tagged as own source. This file, along with this one and this other, are a copyvio from this website. This album cover, also tagged as own, was also taken from the same website. Apart the promotional tone of a description, the categories (now hidden by me) are strangely generic (cinema, music, books, literature of Italy), so highly visible. Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --Dэя-Бøяg17:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Well known Lithuanian vandal. He has been already reported here as 158.129.160.66. He used to be more active, but he has changed his modus operandi and now he comes here once or twice a day and makes a nonsense edit. Perhaps it's time to block 158.129.160.0/24 for some time.
User warned. No evidence of previous copyright related warnings found (one scope-related DR notice and nothing else). @WayKurat: when tagging files as copyright violations, please make sure you inform the user as required. This is automated if you use Help:QuickDelete. Storkk (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
178.33.141.170
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm working on it, deleting spam and blocking accounts. @Magog the Ogre: CU may be handy here. These accounts are all posting the same spammy uploads as the ones listed above. INeverCry23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism is predicated upon intent as well as effect. In the absence of evidence of bad intent, for an edit that does no harm to the image, we would assume good faith until a contrary intention is shown. FWIW I has about to add virtually the same comment as Achim55 but was edit-conflicted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
97.41.1.47
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: After I pointed him towards some guidelines and corrected some of his categorizations that contradict the guidelines, Fotochronist suddenly has started to add pointless deletion requests to many of his own files, stating that he has stopped his collaboration because he was "bullied". He also removes categories from his files without a reason. He has never answered the suggestions that me and another user posted to his talk page. Please close his deletion requests and stop him from causing further harm.
Everything I have seen from him was in German, including categories, so I guess that limited command of the English language may be part of the problem. --Sitacuisses (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Analisac Ior
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: User uploaded a bunch of copyrighted logos in Commons. User is also a possible sockpuppet of longterm en.wiki vandal en:User:Roi Casilana. The reversed username is already a clue.
Reasons for reporting: I'm about to block this cat on en-wiki as a sock of Bazaira. They have a number of uploads here which I believe to be copyvios; for instance, an enlarged detail of this shows up as File:João Gomes Jr.jpg, with the user claiming it's their own work. Thank you for your attention. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to see that you thought of blocking ME, instead of appreciating my struggle against that troll. Guycn2 · ☎22:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring is always to be avoided, that explain the message by Lacrymocéphale. However obvious and excessive disruptive behavior/vandalism is much more prohibed. Christian Ferrer(talk)22:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Guycn2: I'm sorry for that but you kind of struggle the wrong way. As an external, it was hard to determine what was happening. I thought about blocking you both for ten minutes or less just to read out the events. It would have end up the them way. The next time you're trolled, you shouldn't try to revert all the troll editions and concentrate on the necessary (which is probably this page). Like in a bar fight, I thought about having the opponents separated before hearing their testimonies. As you can see, I kind of help you, my demande was treated and a good choice was made. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Guycn2: It's complicated to have the good reaction when dealing with trolls. You weren't too bad. I've done worst, by the past, with total loss of temper. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess the best way to deal with it in this case would be requesting to block him, and rollbacking all of his edits only after he's been blocked. The problem is that he'd probably vandalize this page as well. Guycn2 · ☎23:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
2a00:1370:812d:131e:ac3d:b981:51e:5464
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
If you consider it worthy rev-deletion, why then do you cite it here, English translation included? Just curious... --A.Savin11:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Because Russian is not lingua franca on Commons. And this topic will be archived in a few days and only determined people will be able to find it. --jdxRe:11:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Personal data/insults won't be hidden just because the page is getting archived. Thus it is better not to translate such stuff on AN. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism and legal threats
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Editor(s) vandalized description and made false claims. This led to legal threats being made against me on a Wikipedia page using the file-image. [1]Darknipples (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Done The guy's on a mobile range, so we'll probably hear from him again soon. I've hidden the edits and protected the affected files for now. INeverCry00:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
2607:fb90:22ca:9bdb:0:4f:a25a:fe01
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Done I blocked him for a week, because he wanted, that his edits were not reverted during a week. Jdx reverted all his edits. Taivo (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
غياث العرودكي
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Block evasion of Itailevi00, crosswiki vandal (most on Israel-related pages) and prolific sockpuppeteer (see SPI case, SPI archive and SP category). He was indef blocked here, at enwiki and hewiki (see central auth).
Reasons for reporting: Continues to vandalize details on file pages despite several warnings. Has already been blocked as 126.5.24.233 (talk·contribs) for similar behaviour.
Blocked for 3 months as a static IP. He's all across a /16 range, so a rangeblock isn't possible since I don't have CU to check for collateral. INeverCry05:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
361szm
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Note: anyway, I'll watch the C.A.. He seems to be a Serbo-Croatian speaker, and indeed he's logged on sh and sr wikis (without contribs). If he'll start vandalizing there, I'll request a global block. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg21:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Vandalism only account. Please block this user. They continuec to upload copyvios despite several warnings. Wikicology (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wikicology: Uploads all appear to to have been prior to the first warning... might been simple cluelessness. I don't think a block is appropriate unless the behavior continues. Please keep watching, though. Reventtalk16:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Seems to hate adult entertainment expo images by nominating them for deletion. Also, the inactive account Ghkldsada is connected with this IP.
+1 user eygenart is a single-purpose/ throw-awy account, obviously created today for deletion requests only. see difflinks: [2][3][4] There is not a single edit, that is forwarding the project. Difflink 2 shows, that he is in it for commerial reasons only, without any doubt. Please block user eygenart infinte. --Foreign Species (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I unblocked Eygenart per Mattbuck's request on my talkpage. I blocked him, because (s)he did not stop before nominating every file in category:Ukranenland for deletion. Mattbuck suggested unblock, because (s)he stopped 2 minutes after warning. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Info I closed the DR (with a big keep of course) today. I recommend to keep this thread pending for a couple of days and see what happens. IMHO the user needs help, I don't think there was any malice involved. My two cents. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
2602:306:cf43:9850:227c:8fff:fee8:b16c
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Personal attacks on someone called Jeff Rowland (perhaps it is one of these Jeffs Rowlands). I am quite sure that I already saw this vandal here 1–2 weeks ago.
Not done Per the (ongoing) discussion at User talk:Plettman; a disagreement about the "scope" of location categories (i.e. whether appropriately used for images actually depicting said location or for images merely taken in said location) this is not vandalism. Please COM:AGF. Эlcobbolatalk15:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
216.14.12.218
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
They are back again as 2001:8003:190F:3300:2CF4:9265:DB5D:6585, but they only made 2 edits and have stopped. Block this IP for block evasion, or leave it unblocked and watch them instead? Thanks, ★Poké9511:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Blocked. I've closed the DRs rather than deleting the pages. That way the bot can easily archive them from the daily listing. INeverCry07:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Dd1495
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This user (User:Taivo) shamelessly invaded my pages I've created and vandalised photos and texts with references! I call on Administration attention to block this troll. Eventually, pages will be protected (locked) from any further of such kind "friendly" contributors. If user Taivo is a real Wikipedia contributor (which is hardly to say due to his profile information where he impersonates him/herself as a Wikipedia troll), he/she shoud've asked me in a personal message for more details on a photo or text information. We ask, Wikipedia Administration, to pay more attention on its contributors who not all of them contribute for the good of the website.
Cyberfoxy6 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
As you can see from talkpage of Cyberfoxy, I deleted a lot of his/her uploads. They were found on different external sites with earlier date and at least same size. Cyberfoxy gave wrong licenses. Some files I kept, because they were too old for copyright protection. I re-licensed, described and categorized them. Cyberfoxy re-uploaded some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Not here to contribute, IMHO. The user uploaded images out of project scope or copyvio. This file was deleted as copyvio, this file after D.R.... The other pictures are this (I'm quite sure is a copyvio) and 3 UP images (1st, 2nd and 3rd), I suppose about him. They are unused in user space, quality is very poor, and I tagged 'em for speedy deletion (same reason of this DR). Unusable for the project scope. --Dэя-Бøяg20:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Info It seems to me like the user's attempts to fix some descriptions and categorization; not clear vandalisms. I do not see license removals among recent edits. If they still do something wrong, rather instructing the user than blocking is suggested. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ankry: All files that the vandal edited were uploaded by Hung1505khta and it's clear (at lest to me) that the photos were taken by the same person – they look similar and were taken with the same smartphone. But the vandal for each of these 5 files replaced author's name with a random name: [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Also s/he removed licence templates and changed source fields and dates. It's clear vandalism to me. Yes, later s/he calmed down, probably because s/he noticed my report here. I have strange feeling that her/his recent edits are also vandalism, but I can't prove it. BTW. The other issue is copyright status of these photos – they look like photos of pages from a book. But hey, COM:AGF. --jdxRe:16:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
In the third diff, the source is switched to "internet"; in two others the uploader's username is replaced with usernames of non-existent accounts. This is disruptive/vandalism. He's on a dynamic IP, and probably gets a new IP every 24/36 hours judging by his editing so far which spans almost a full day. If the vandalism starts up under a second IP, a 3-day/1 week block of 1.53.176.0/20 might be necessary. For now I've filed Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hung1505khta for the uploads. INeverCry01:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Lucasaraujo2017
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You are wrong, first of all, because I only improved the categorization there. Secondly, you say I remove categories "without discussion" but you report me to this board (first time ever someone did that) "without discussing with me" my edits first. Please also ask people if everytime they add or remove a cat they discuss it. Discuss with whom? Have a good day. --E4024 (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@HakanIST and E4024: creating a user person's category is a good thing if more than a single file belongs there. E4024, do you intend add more files there? But it shouldn't be considered vandalism. As well as removing overcategorisation. Ankry (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
All qualified as speedy deletions, which required immediate deletion. One had an explicit NC license and the others came from the web -- either sites with an explicit copyright notice or with no free license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: & @Jameslwoodward: Thanks for your prompt replies. I have reviewed the terms and I would like to state that the copy rights were addressed accurately, the images had not been downloaded from the internet, and I do have the legal right to post all those images. Given that, what is the next step now? Can we roll-back the photos? Shall I re-upload them? Or there are further legal clarifications which need to be addressed? Arashtitan (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: This IP address is an IP sock of Szm020730. Creating nonsense deletion requests from flag files. For more details, see rangeblock
Duck, Duck, and, well, It looks like a duck to me. Even without connecting directly to the original, obviously a sock of the more recent blocked socks. Indeffed. Reventtalk23:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done He is not uploading porn. He uploaded it almost two years ago and has been inactive since then. You have nominated his files for deletion and now just please wait for a decision of community and an administrator. --jdxRe:18:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
But please don't nominated them all for deletion simply because it is porn. You should explain why it should be deleted, for example, low quality (out of COM:SCOPE), copyright violation, etc. ★Poké9501:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
USER/IP
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Back to his/her same antics of randomly changing dates or other details on image files only a few days after the last one-month block expired. --DAJF (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
See this and this for previous related. Has been on this range for most of the year. See range report. Previously used range 108.5.64.0/20. Has been blocked for addition of bogus unreferenced bio categories every time has been identified on enwiki (See example). Also active on wikidata doing similar. I am not sure about Commons categorization policies but most of the categories used seem little related to useful categorization of images for the people involved and are mostly empty after his bogus categories have been remove. I expect that false categorization of people's personal information is discouraged but can't find any Commons policy that makes that explicit as it is on enwiki w:WP:BLPCAT and w:WP:BLP. I have been working to clean up what I could find and notice other editors doing the same when they run across it. A range block on Commons looks to have little collateral damage based on what I can see and cleaning up the useless categories he has added might be beneficial to Commons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Seeing their talk page, they have stopped after final warning. Let's wait for their further actions. A block is not needed now IMHO. ★Poké9508:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, actually the first warning occured on October 31st and he kept dowloading copyrighted pictures until this morning... Goodshort (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm watching their talk page after deleting some of their uploads that appeared as if they weren't warned (although Goodshort warned them on frwiki). I was about to block them this morning, but noticed that INeverCry had blocked then unblocked this morning. Given this history, I think we can probably wait for the next violation before blocking... but it does highlight why warnings should be given here whether they are given on another wiki as well or not. Storkk (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Guess I should've followed my gut and let the block stand. But you never know, sometimes these guys do stop with a warning...sometimes... lNeverCry10:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Not vandalism but edit warring. I warned both of you. If you two continue revert each other, both of you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss first on each other's talk pages before reverting. Thanks, ★Poké9512:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Azizetmohamed
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I am not doubting the revdel of the vandalism (I am not doubting you also as an admin), and I am not an admin, so I would not see the reverted edit. But may I ask what is the reason for the revdel (I am not asking for the contents)? Is it because it was an "inappropriate personal information"? "Grossly inappropriate content"? And normally, vandals with only one edit are not blocked (and instead warned), unless if they are a LTA or a sockpuppet. If you think I am disrespecting you, please disregard this, as your fellow colleague sent me a sarcastic message. Thanks, ★Poké9512:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Definitely gives the impression as being the same person as Lesser Slave River - reuploaded the same files - but the first account was neither warned nor blocked. Warnings left, and marked as a suspected sockpuppet... if he creates a 'third' account I'll block them all. Some specific explanation of why the files are not ok (no FOP for 2D works in Canada) might help, however. Reventtalk07:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Seems to be another sockpuppet of User:Rolandodeynigo: same location, subjects, designs, sourceless nonsense and distorting edits
Reasons for reporting: New sock of Szm020730 in block evasion. Obviously he entered to Wikimedia with the purpose of vandalizing. Please delete his hoax images, only used for vandalism by this sockmaster.
Reasons for reporting: The user was first seen in en.wiki creating an article about an imaginary PBA team based from the en:Star Hotshots named "San Mig Super Coffee Star Hotshots" naming himself the owner. Then he uploaded two photos of himself in Commons and adding them both in his hoax article/template. Both were nominated for speedy-deletion. Please note that this user, along with his sockpuppet en:User:Fredmak2017 were already blocked in en.wiki. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fredmak2016 for details.
Considering, that he has uploaded so far 1 copyvio and 2 out-of-scope images and created 1 speedily-deleted category, I warned him and hope, that this is enough. If not, he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Expedientialracism
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Done Dynamic IP, blocked for a day. I've already seen 2–3 times an IP inserting File:Finocchio.jpg into a talk page (perhaps yours?), so when it happens again, a soft range block might be applied. --jdxRe:10:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep, thank you jdx! A fennel is, in Italy, a derisive way to say "gay". As the vandal is homophobic as well, this was meant to be an insult. --Ruthven(msg)11:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
GGN TPhA
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Indefed after investigation. User states on his discussion page that he has no interest in participating anymore (according to Google Translate) and left as a vandal. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
PirnaSun
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: This account was blocked on November 2 at en.wiki for being a sockpuppet of longterm vandal en:User:Bertrand101 (see SPI report from en.wiki). The Commons account of this vandal became active in uploading a bunch of hoax logos and photos of supposed transmitter towers of his hoax radio stations here in commons up until November 27. A permanent block should be issued here to this sock and to nuke all of his uploads. -
Reasons for reporting: Hi, Paigh45 is very likely to be another avatar of Jkffa (who is also Emisoul4) who keeps uploading copyvio files despite many warnings and a 1 week block. This user has been blocked on fr:wp.
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I found several nominations on the files originally nominated by Mission_Kashmir_III(talk·contributions·Statistics) (see the contributions), then nominated again. Some possible sockpuppets (found by DUCK) are:
Please indef block these users, and please speedy close the DRs and semi (if possible fully) protect the files nominated by these users. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Requests to deal with sockpuppets, especially "possible sockpuppets," need to be made at COM:RFCU. Requests at admin noticeboards make it much harder for CUs to research previous behaviour/socks and preclude a search for sleepers unless a CU happens by (e.g. Sher Aziz I and Chitral Wikipedia were sleepers not identified above). Эlcobbolatalk16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
2604:6000:1115:18:6830:9B15:8B03:FD8B
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Proper procedure after a speedy template is removed is to file a DR, not to just revert each other. One should also not remove speedy templates from one's own uploads except in the case of unambiguous vandalism, which this was not. However, that does not excuse a revert war either. You've both been warned not to edit war now, so please stop. Storkk (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hanzzzzz07
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: User has been caught multiple times uploading copyrighted photos and logos in Commons and tagged them under a "cc-by-sa-4.0" license. Several warnings have been posted in his talk page and yet he continues on uploading copyvio photos here. -WayKurat (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: . Thank you. She is stalking me and also User:Geagea, also on Wikidata, English wikipedia; German wikipedia, etc...etc.... I am her main target because I am a sysop in Hebrew Wikipedia and I am dealing there with her vandalism. This is her juvenile revenge, so pathetic. It is easy to recognize her she undo my edits wiht no good reasons. Hanay (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Nominated some files previously nominated by a sockpuppet of Chitral Wikipedia (possible a sockpuppet, too). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: The only editions from this user consisted in Deletion request, nominated the same files three times. Please speedy close the DRs and block the user (and if possible, please semi protect the affected files).
Reasons for reporting: vandalism categories of File:F. Bayer Wuppertal-Heckinghauser Str. 162.jpg. I catories all images of this town. Drdoht claim his is his own picture and has only right for working at this.
Reasons for reporting: Nominated hundred of sexual-related files without valid reasons, several of them already nominated and kept. Please block this IP/range and speedy close the DRs.
Reasons for reporting: Self-promotional only account that is spamming a jewellery (Misspapassorn Chandharat) with his nick (see username policy). Apart that gallery, he uploaded a pair of files (first and second) showing the jewellery and used the description to spam the mail of his office. My 2 cents: "yet another attempt to use Commons as a billboard for self-advertising". Btw, I also tagged for speedy deletion the files. --Dэя-Бøяg01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Done Soft blocked the whole 79.12.0.0/16, 79.53.0.0/16 and 80.183.101.0/24 for a month. This is long-term vandal who harasses Vituzzu, most likely Fritella (Vituzzu, could you confirm this?). Here is the list of anonymous contributions from these ranges + 80.183.0.0/17 since 1st January 2016. --jdxRe:06:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, all of those are fritella's block evasions, but I don't think this will be enough. While the 79.12.0.0/16 subnet is definitely the one with higher hit number he can come from almost any chunk in roughly half of 79.0.0.0/8, but also from 95.224.0.0/12 (usually the central ones), lots of 82.0.0.0/8 (around the end of the lower /10), something in 80.0.0.0/8 (not so often though) and a fair number of 87.0.0.0/8 (again around the end of the lower /10). Rangeblocks might mitigate his attacks but I think blocking abusefilter rules are the only solution. He circumvents non blocking rules by bruteforce, making hundreds of attempts (see Special:Abusefilter/146 and Special:Abusefilter/170). Also, some kind of automatic monitoring subcats (I'm not really those means into but afair Commons has some) of category:selfies would be definitely needed. I expect him to switch, sooner or later, to infest autism and sexuality related categories, so what is, above all, needed is training admins to revert these blatantly silly deletion tag (see this, this and this...yep I was pretty upset of them).--Vituzzu (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Here he requested a rotation on one of my images, which was then carried out by a bot. That destroyed the layout on all the 5 articles where the animation is used, all the 5 articles now will have to be edited since the rotated aspect ratio got cached by the articles themselves (see screenshot, Image 2 - both images have the same size and aspect ratio, but the aspect ratio of image 2 got messed up even after reverting the vandalism. There was absolutely no reason for this 90° rotation, that was vandalism causing unescessary work and messed up the layout in 5 articles.
I have warned the user and restored the file to the state before rotation request. Regarding articles, you shouldn't have edited them to fix the layout, you should have just waited patiently for server's cache update. Sometimes it takes a while. Other, better way is purging. --jdxRe:06:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Panoramio upload bot
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Mass creation of files with incorrect categories. I already fixed hundreds of files which had Category:Medea instead of Category:Médéa and also included the category into the blacklist. But since then there have been several more files. --Rodomonte (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The bot "thinks" what categories would be added to a file, but it is not always correct (it is not an A.I.), that's why it may upload files with incorrect categories. Please don't report community approved bots (like this bot) to this admin noticeboard when you have a problem with it (if it is malfunctioning, report it to COM:AN/B, or if you use IRC, send an urgent ping to the admins using "!admin <request>" on #wikimedia-commons for a faster response), instead, assume good faith and talk to the bot operator (in this case, Shizhao). If you want to stop this bot from functioning, you may either ask nicely the bot operator to stop the bot or make a community discussion on COM:VP (it will probably not succeed, but I will support if you or someone do so anyway). Thanks, ★Poké9509:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Talking to the bot operator only works if the bot operator responds and acts on feedback. That hasn't worked. See:
It is still not working correctly. There have again been new entries after 3 days. I think, the bot should never use non-geographical categories at all. And perhaps it should only use subcategories instead of flooding arbitrary categories which don't have anything to do with the images. --Rodomonte (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I think these look like good-faith edits; if you disagree with the additions, why not ask for clarification? If none is forthcoming, revert. But not all artificial poppies are on war memorials, and not all war memorials have artificial poppies. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: All uploads are part of a campaign on en-wiki to harass a classmate or acquaintance. Presumably copyvios (embarassing selfies taken by a third person). Zero value to an encyclopedia or image library.
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please delete the ceiling fans from the image history. (Old vandalism from April 2015, the perpetrators are already blocked.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. I cleaned history of 4 files, vandal accounts are indefinitely blocked and I tagged one of them as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
240D:1A:381:8000:A8E9:DC8C:70DA:D193
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Repeated vandalism in the form of changing dates on image file pages. This pattern of surreptitiously altering dates on various Japanese shinkansen related images has been going on for months as witnessed by the edit history of File:JR Central Shinkansen 700.jpg alone, and is part of a larger campaign of long-term abuse over on Japanese Wikipedia (which explains why this particular IP address was immediately slapped with a one-year block back in February). --DAJF (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Reasons for reporting: Repeated vandalism in the form of changing dates on image file pages. This pattern of surreptitiously altering dates on various Japanese shinkansen related images has been going on for months as witnessed by the edit history of File:JR Central Shinkansen 700.jpg alone. --DAJF (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Done I've blocked the /24 for one week, though I doubt blocking will have much effect in this situation. I've protected two of the files and put the other two on my watchlist in case he hits them with his next IP. DaphneLantier00:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: spam. Just tripped over it whilst cleaning up something else and I am a little short of time. If someone has time to work whether we clean out the spam, or just delete the images, that would be great. Thanks.
Done Files renamed, spam removed. But wow! smart spam undetected for years! :(
But the spam is still visible in the upload history. And some of files do not have a source now. Some of the files are used. What do we do? Oversight the links? Delete the files? Yann (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that some of the files have been first published on another website, see the history of those files. I am thinking of nominating them for deletion to obtain OTRS permission, but all of those files seems to be taken with the same camera. And what's more confusing is that those files are sourced to different sites. What an intelligent spammer... ★Poké9501:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the doing. We have identified a lot of similar spam in the past year. Much we have just deleted as while it was somewhat in scope, it was not used, nor likely to be. At the same time I am less fussed about stuff remnant in the history, as it won't particularly looked at or followed. — billinghurstsDrewth12:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Ajaykaransharma9211
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sismarinho le blasé nominated his/her last remaining uploads for deletion and I warned Ajaykaransharma9211 not to upload more personal photos. No other action is needed now, but if he continues, then he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
南文會館
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Crosswiki self-promo only account. Here he uploaded a picture of himself deleted after DR, but on enwiki he did lots of self promo edits (details here). Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --Dэя-Бøяg19:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly 1 deleted selfie 7 months ago and no other edits on Commons doesn't match 'vandalism', or did I miss something? --Achim (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
If you have crosswiki issues with a user, contact a steward. We are only focused on our specific project, where this user has only made one contribution not worthy of a block. Please note we are not an encyclopedia. ~riley(talk)20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Biendotip12
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Crosswiki vandal that is trying to spread a hoax (an interenet meme about a fake country named "Kekistan") here and at enwiki. Indef blocked there (see also WP:AFD:Republic of Kekistan) and possibly related to a sockpuppeteer, Kekistani Nationalist, here he uploaded 3 files about Kekistan: locator map (DR), flag (DR) and coat of arms (DR). As explained in DR, the location is Bir Tawil, a terra nullius between Egypt and Sudan. For its status, it was claimed as micronation by an American citizen, for his child, who named it "Kingdom of North Sudan". Kekistan is an Internet meme, with a subreddit and a wikia, about a fake country with a sort of Kriegsmarine's war flag. So, more than a claim of a micronation, this looks like a blatant vandalism. To indef ban. --Dэя-Бøяg16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: All user's contribs are self-promotional spam (CA tool link). The user uploaded 19 (blurry) pics about himself and related (friends, family), all with the Category:Actors (removed by me when I tagged the pics for speedy del). After this, he created the pages Crear biografia, Talk:Crear biografia and User:Juanjo erraez; all with the same curriculum (about him). To resume: yet another young "wannabe-actor/singer/sportsman" that used Commons as a photo book/free pic storage... And as a place for free promo. My sincere best of wishes for his career, but all edits are self-promo, and this is a "vandalism-only mode". --Dэя-Бøяg04:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Likely a sock of Yujoong. Uploads copyvios with fake license review tag in the name of Yujoong (for example special:diff/241536263, special:diff/241547262).
Unblocked due to a private e-mail, claiming to be a different person. I'll assume good faith for now. Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The user (or his script) is insisting on performing an illegal crop on a non free image. The User is performing lots of automatic or semiautomatic edits which only deteriorate the quality of content and he is not willing to discuss any of it. --Ailura (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
47.37.172.27
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: A brief spree of assorted vandalism, including replacing user names with “LordLoss9”, posting puerile obscenities in project space, and blanking of user pages. Seems to be pursuing a grudge of some kind.
Reasons for reporting: Uploaded a lot of images in copyright violation as own works, and vandalized it.wikipedia. --87.18.94.15913:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: User is being uploading files without license and information and source. There are chances that his uploads are copyvios. His contribution too dosent seems good.
Reasons for reporting: Account uploads only copyrighted images with the only purpose of making a hoax on Spanish Wikipedia (es:Krissteen Tara), of course he is trying to add wrong info on Commons, on the images descriptions.
Reasons for reporting: I'd say this probably constitutes vandalism, maybe a serious competency issue... but probably vandalism. User uploading fairly random images with ...salacious titles, and then nominating their own images for deletion as unconstructive.
Reasons for reporting: Vandalism mainly on Mitch McConnell files, some other Republicans. Inserting "Turtle..." on most of the files. Please see their contributions for more.
Reasons for reporting: I believe many of the photos this user has uploaded are copyright violations. I've only been able to track down one possible link. This photo is of a higher resolution than this photo uploaded to the Commons. It's also pretty unlikely an uploader to Wikipedia has access to all these vehicles. Their talk page is filled with copyright violation warnings. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Sex photos1
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Done. I reverted the vandalism and blocked vandalistic IP-s for a day. It seems, that I must semi-protect the vandalized page. Probably one month is enough. Taivo (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
LDyou
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Since the user is active, he is vandalizing the categories of (and only) my contributions. As this user has not contributed anything usable (well, one copvio was provided) since creating his account, I cannot see any intention for a collaboration in Commons. Please warn and indef block if it occurs again.
Done. Low-activity vandal, only 4 edits during 2 months. I warned him/her. If this does not help, then (s)he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Softblocked for a month. If behavior continues on the same IP address later, we can probably assume the IP is static and indefblock. Storkk (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Morganalok
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Done All his/her uploads so far were either out of scope or copyright violations, so I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
郭素芳
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Taivo: FYI: I went over your head and made all the edits of this (insert your own swearword) invisible. It's a static IP according to [13]. I'd block this (IYOSw) for a bit longer, but that's your call. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)11:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If that's a static IP, then I reblocked it for a year. I agree: making these edits invisible is good. Taivo (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
My favorite account 2
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Done Indef. This guy is SYSOP(!) on fr.wikitionary, unbelievable! He knows what's what and that he can't vandalize unpunished. Already has previous blocks and still vandalizes without any hesitation. Better for us if he finds other outlets. Can't behave here, can't edit here. Simple as pie. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Gdampflmonom
Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: New account empties lots of categories of nature reserves that may have contained no images, but are part of a complete system, and has them deleted. Obviously not a new user, but someone with an agenda. These categories are required for the WLE competitions, they are part of local categories and contain descriptions.
Wenn der Benutzer sich nützlich machen möchte, soll er diese Vorlage einfügen statt die Kategorien zu leeren und löschen zu lassen. --Sitacuisses (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Achim55, das wäre schön. Zu Hedwigs AGF-Vermutung frage ich mich, warum jemand für solche Power-Aktionen einen am gleichen Vormittag angelegten Account benutzt. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Sitacuisses, ich gebe dir insofern recht, als der gezielte Gebrauch von HotCat und die Verwendung von {{Csd}} kurz nach Anlegen des Accounts schon den Verdacht auf Sockpuppetry aufkommen lässt. --Achim (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Blocked, locked, key thrown away After Gdampflmonom successfully acted as an (insert your favorite noun here) and insulted other users, his account is now blocked and talk page acess removed as well. Another of my Com:AGF down the drain. On my way, Sitacuisses, had to grab some --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)14:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Moist towelett
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Keeps uploading copyvio files. My Deletion request from May: Commons:Deletion requests/JolsenxD. The files he uploaded since then should be deleted as well.
Reasons for reporting: crosswiki self-promotional only account (his music band, I suppose). Here uploaded 13 files about his production (tagged for speedy del), at enwiki he did, more or less, the same kind of work (filling the encyclopedia of articles about his productions and about himself, see this for details). See also this AFD page, user's contribs and WP:YAMB. Btw, I requested a global lock. --Dэя-Бøяg03:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
It is technically Possible that the three ranges are related, but obviously that becomes at least Likely with consideration of behaviour. Given the timing of the creation of accounts (i.e., accounts created "randomly," as opposed to in response to a block/sanction of an existing account) and the timing of edits (i.e., accounts are not "discarded," but rather one will edit for a time, another will edit for a time, and then the first will edit again), it may be that this is not a single person. I will look into the relationships further, but, for the moment, I would block solely based on behaviour--those making the attacks. Эlcobbolatalk18:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Lwinky
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Está subiendo versiones de mapas modificadas contra el criterio general con objeto de hacer propaganda de determinadas causas políticas.
Not done. Only 2 copyvio messages since 2014. No warnings. Last 10 uploads were good. There were some problems in the past, but the user has been considerably better since then. Taivo (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
71.218.16.215
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reasons for reporting: Uploaded a number of recent files here. This user has been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia as a Vandalism Only account, for creating hoaxes. Files uploaded on Commons were used in those hoaxes. I found the following uploaded by that user:
The uploader credits himself as the source of the works, which seems doubtful since some look like official government images. The uploader also credits himself as the copyright holder.
And the File:Fouadadan510.jpg, of course. OMG, he's unstoppable! He's filling Commons of dozen of pics of him... <joke mode>Shall I upload a "Wanted Poster" of him?</joke mode>. Anyway, talking about my request for title black list (en.wp), shoud be blacklisted here fouad+adan+hamoussin into user namespace? Note: user has the strange habit to categorize his pics in the categories H and G. --Dэя-Бøяg21:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Good idea :-) . PS: I report, as an example, the case of "Anachidiislami" (not logged here, reported on meta, of course): originally, I supposed he was unrelated but, seeing CA, I noted that he created the account (on ar.wp), just 2 minutes before Anachidifouadadan (on ar.wp). Per "duck" (confirmed). --Dэя-Бøяg01:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Reasons for reporting: Yet another crosswiki self-promo account (musician). See en:Natey love. Here is uploading lots of pictures (including album covers badly licensed). By now 40, all tagged for speedy del. Of course, he added his website link in any description. --Dэя-Бøяg23:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It's time for another block. 
Pending
Info I closed the DR (with a big keep of course) today. I recommend to keep this thread pending for a couple of days and see what happens. IMHO the user needs help, I don't think there was any malice involved. My two cents. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Just look at his contributions.
Not done Per the (ongoing) discussion at User talk:Plettman; a disagreement about the "scope" of location categories (i.e. whether appropriately used for images actually depicting said location or for images merely taken in said location) this is not vandalism. Please COM:AGF. Эlcobbola talk 15:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a duck to me. Even without connecting directly to the original, obviously a sock of the more recent blocked socks. Indeffed. Reventtalk 23:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed, also Doomprogress. Эlcobbola talk 03:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment It was 82.49.147.254. --jdx Re: 10:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose That's a valid political opinion (well, half of it, see http://mig.tumblr.com/post/161642876373/somehow-theresa-may-thinks-labour-are-terrorist for the rest). The image is a copyvio of https://seachranaidhe1.blog/2015/10/22/the-conclusions-about-each-paramilitary-group/. — Jeff G. ツ 02:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Support I support the reason the nominator gives. The user must be speedily blocked for this vandalism --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 12:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
He knows what's what and that he can't vandalize unpunished. Already has previous blocks and still vandalizes without any hesitation. Better for us if he finds other outlets. Can't behave here, can't edit here. Simple as pie. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3ARifles_3_%26_half.JPG&type=revision&diff=202459791&oldid=202255210){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LetrieuHienTongDueHoangDe.jpg&diff=208612557&oldid=207979167){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LetrieuDucTongKienHoangDe.jpg&diff=208612565&oldid=207978027){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LetrieuThanTongUyenHoangDe.jpg&diff=208612573&oldid=207977427){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:LetrieuCungVuongLeKhacXuong.jpg&diff=208612568&oldid=207976806){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Le_Thanh_Tong.jpg&diff=208612561&oldid=208482442){kind=link}
.gif&diff=235273147&oldid=202560647){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Presentaci%C3%B3n_World_Press_Photo_2011.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEmmanuel_Macron_and_Brigitte_Macron_at_G7_summit_2017.jpg&type=revision&diff=249283224&oldid=249253120){kind=link}
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Possible that the three ranges are related, but obviously that becomes at least 
Likely with consideration of behaviour. Given the timing of the creation of accounts (i.e., accounts created "randomly," as opposed to in response to a block/sanction of an existing account) and the timing of edits (i.e., accounts are not "discarded," but rather one will edit for a time, another will edit for a time, and then the first will edit again), it may be that this is not a single person. I will look into the relationships further, but, for the moment, I would block solely based on behaviour--those making the attacks. Эlcobbola talk 18:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
msdp1.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
