Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

Admins be aware: Vandals pretending to be bots

We've had quite a few. Maybe keen an eye on Special:Contributions/newbies - look especially for user/user talk page edits - and just block them. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

President elect of Mexico image has been vandalized

Can you please revert to the previous legitimate version of the image, it has been replaced by a cartoon biased representation that leads to hatred. Affected item at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Felipe_Calderon.jpg --Alex mayorga 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

- Vandal blocked, picture is OK now. A.J. 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Thanks on the prompt response.--Alex mayorga 14:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Immediate image deletion request

I honestly think Image:Tubgirl.jpg doesn't need Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tubgirl.jpg and should be deleted without further ado right now. Lupo 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the old revision already. I'm quite happy to have this protected as "

". Alphax (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, maybe I was a bit trigger happy... oh well, it's on my watchlist now, and deleted as well. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

image -jkb-

can somebody please have a look to the Image:-jkb-.jpg which is a personal attack on me? See there the history, also than the request to block the user, which has attacked more Users on the en.wiki and elsewhere today and in last days. Se if you want en:User:-jkb-/Vandalism and impostors, thx, -jkb- 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and user blocked. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

thx, -jkb- 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalbot

Can somebody block User:80.242.64.3 ??? Alex Bakharev 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Samulili for 6 months. Alphax (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User inserting random numbers

I don't know what this it, but it seems vandalism. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bryan (talk • contribs) at 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted and left a note on their talk page. Let's see if we can find out what/why they're doing. Alphax (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

International vandal blocked indefinitely on nl.wp

Hi! I'm a moderator on the Dutch Wikipedia and I wanted to draw your attention to this user. Please have a look and act as you see fit. We blocked him/her indefinitely... Greetings, MigGroningen 17:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for one week, as I'm unable to tell whether or not this IP address is static or dynamic. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's registered to Siemens Business Services; unfortunately there's no "abuse@" address to contact. Alphax (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hitler vandalism

I've run into a hornets nest of socks all redirecting user pages to Adolf Hitler (as well as some pagemoving vandalism too). All new accounts- worth keeping a close eye on new users for a bit.--Nilfanion 03:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Adolf Hitler, to catch older, unblocked socks and leftover redirects. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us the usernames? Alphax (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The users were Simon_Crawler (talk · contribs), Gaming_Freakys (talk · contribs), Fr-II_P (talk · contribs), New_Member (talk · contribs), Takkkkoz (talk · contribs), Doggiast (talk · contribs), Yuziiiu (talk · contribs), 67878a (talk · contribs) and Hitlerstadt??? (talk · contribs). Any remaining vandalism associated with them seems fixed. I've also semi-protected Adolf Hitler for now, might as well remove that in a few days. A good user seems to have been caught up in the mess (check the galleries history).--Nilfanion 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A "good-intentioned" vandal

I have a problem with [user Mac9]. Whenever I upload a series of pictures about an Italian town (and about this subject alone), he always removes any category pointing to a name of a town, and destroyes the category page itself (including the text I wrote for it).
When asked to stop behaving this way, he replied that category pages ought never contain images, just text. To bundle images one must use thumbnail pages. When I replied that this rule applies nowhere, and that Commons is full of category pages gathering images, he said that on the ITALIAN (???) Wikicommons it had ben decided this way, and that other Wikicommons ought to behave the same way, to get a more "orderly" result. When I asked him to tell me where I could read the discussion leading to the bizarre decision he refers to, or where the rules had been written down, he failed twice to tell me about it. In short, he set the rules, and he wants to implement them by his own. Whenever I add a category, he deletes it immediately. He must have put all Italian towns in his watchlist.

I realise that the querelle "thumb-page vs category-page" is a complicate and old one. Probabily the discussion won't be settled for a while, so my opinion is: an image can be stored and retrieved in two different ways, and that's it. I never destroy a thumb page to put a category page in its place. I just add another method to retrieve info for people preferring it. So I don't see why should category pages be destroied.

I created and used thumb pages myself, I am not against them. But still I prefer categories as a faster and more immediate way to organise images. By giving a look at the difference between the thumb page Aristotelēs and the Category:Aristotle one realizes how much time a thumb page may take to catch up with a category page. On the other hand, a thumb page is way much orderly, that's true.

To make a long story short, to avoid further bickering I stayed away from Italian towns, Mac9's own kingdom, and created pages about Istanbul & re. instead. But now I have to upload a lot of images I shot in Italian museums, so I cannot delay any further. He even prevents me to create a category page about a museum located in an Italian town, so I created some of them secretly, as with Category:Museo archeologico regionale di Palermo (yes I know is too long; I'd like to create sub-categories, as I did with Istanbul, but I must be first sure Mac9 will not maniacally undo everything), without ever putting a link to the page of the town where the museum is located. But HIDING the info I upload is nonsensical. Knowledge wants to be free.

I need Mac9 to be kindly asked by some adms to stop his vandalism, because removing information without any reason (apart "in the ITALIAN Wikicommons we are more orderly than elsewhere") is vandalism. I don't want him to stop creating his fancy pages, I only want him to stop destroying mine.

Could anybody help? I have no objection on other people arranging info in a different way than I do, but just in case separate and special rules applied to the "Italian" Wikicommons alone, I still have the right to know who, when and why decided about them. Thank you in advance. --G.dallorto 21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found another user's complaint about Mac9 removing cathegorisation from "Po river" http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#The_failure_of_image_classification_by_articles

So I am not the only one with this problem. --G.dallorto 14:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this request. User:Mac9 removes appropriate categories from media files, that he cannot justify by Commons rules application, or technical reasons. Therefore, we should consider such repeated acts, in spite of numberous protests and warnings, as vandalism. --Juiced lemon 14:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Italian Wikicommons". Warn them and then give them a 48 hour block if it continues. Alphax (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know it, and told him so, and he did not reply. Such is his style. This is why we need an adm to step in. Btw mac9, whom I had informed about this post, told me that in the past he had been charged with vandalism already, but that it was decided that his is not vandalism. Now I asked him about the whereabouts of this discussion to read it: I am looking for a solution which is respectful for the work of everybody, including his. And mac9 is doing a lot of work, by creating galleries. My objection is that he ought not destroy other people's work while doing his own.

Meanwhile, I had no reply from adms yet. Do I really need to file a formal complaint for vandalism, or can we reason about the matter in a constructive way? Please reply. --G.dallorto 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this request too. Some time ago, Mac9 removed useful categories from the coats of arms of italian cities, never answering about the reason of his action. Semolo75 15:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

G.dallorto, Alphax is an admin. So am I.

I wrote mac a warning. I believe he is trying to improve the wiki, maybe in a not very straightforward way, therefore he is not a vandal.

If he continues to edit without discussion, I trust some admin will give him a short block. This behaviour is not acceptable by anyone.

Meanwhile I suggest you start thinking about how to organise a category scheme for Italy-related topics. Which topics are suited to categories and which ones to galleries? How detailed should categories be? etc. Don't write it here, but put some notes in your userspace or something like that. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding. And thxs for the warning. I agree with you that mac9 has good intentions indeed, as this I admitted from the start, in the title itseld. This is the reason why I did not file a complaint for vandalism. His INTENTIONS are good, he does not just want Commons to close down. However, his refuse to discuss with anyone about his actions is a problem indeed, AND it is harmful. His message page contains several requests for explanations about why he destroyed categories without any reasons: always the same complaint...

Thxs for your suggestion about categories, I am ready to contribute, however here we are talking about a much much much lower level. mac9 kept deleting for a log while categories of any type from any page dealing with any italian geographical entity (and only with that!). He would not allow a category page about a museum, or a monument, or a river, or a town, or a coat of arms located in Italy alone. Therefore we are not discussing, here, about how Italy could be categorised, we are merely discussing about whether categories are allowed about Italian geography or not. Mac9 would not allow any categories standing... for Italy alone (weird!). I am ready to discuss with anybody about categorising, I have been on wiki long enough to know that consensus must be reached through discussion and agreement. But I need to have a person who answers my questions on the other side of the wire. Mac9, as others testified, refuses to answer about rationales for his behaviour. Let's hope that the warning will be now of some help. Thank you for you help. --G.dallorto 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just a curiosity. mac9 thinks gallery pages are superior to category pages, and that's ok: there is no "correct" answer to such a doubt. But when it comes to the pictures he uploaded on Commons, he created a category, not a mere gallery. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:User:Mac9 So after all, when he wants, he agrees galleries may be of some use... provided it be of some use to him :-)

Well, we have no formal "file a complaint for vandalism" procedure, it is just the same as what you did - post a section on this page. So I find it funny to talk like that. But eh. Please think, as I said, about how you would organise an Italy category scheme. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some diffs of the behaviour you're unhappy with? Alphax (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For Pfctdayelise: sorry, this is my mistake. This is the first time (luckily) that I have to complain about this problem, so I thought it was a much more formal thing, with a formal vote & re. What I meant is that I was only looking for an arbitration, not (yet) for a formal ban for mac9. I realise that the situation is weird, but the point is not that we should agree on how categorizing Italian entries: I wish we were! The point is that mac9 does not allow any categories to be added to any image relating to Italy in some geographical sense!

Pfctdayelise & Alphax. Here are a few examples. He removed from Category:Coats of arms of the cities and villages of Campania the link to Category:Campania, which is the name of the region these coats of arms refer to [2].

When lemonjuice created a Category:Po river, which was sub-categorized under Category:Rivers, he deleted it from all the pictures in the category [3].

When I created a Category:Fontana Maggiore di Perugia to gather the 40 pictures or so that I had shot to this medieval monument and the others I had found in Commons, he removed the category from all of the pictures, and destroyed the Italian and English text I had written about the fountain [4].

and moved it to the gallery he had created in its place only when I complained about it. Before, he had not bothered to do so, he just deleted everything.

This are just examples of his action: if you need more, I'll give more. In short: he removes categories from any picture that deals with any geographical locations in Italy -- alone. He allows categories only on gallery pages, and text pages. When a category is created, he destroys it. What is worst, he never warns about his action and he never accepts to discuss his action. In the case of Perugia I mentione, he started deleting the category while I was still uploading the images, so he could have very well contacted me to tell me to stop (explaingin me why I was suppoesed to stop), yet he did not care to do so. He just deleted everything.

For everybody. In my talk page in it:wikipedia he just wrote be that I like to babble too much (ok, nobody is perfect); however he did not answer any of my questions (this must be the fourth time I ask him about them) about where and when it had been decided that categories were not allowed on the purpoted "Italian" Wikicommons; he said that not removing categories without a good reason is not at all a rule on Commons ([which is false http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Category#Categories_or_galleries]: quote: "Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery" - unquote), and eventually he told me he had "spoken with an adm" who reassured him that he is not doing any wrong. In my turn I invited him once more to answer my questions, and to tell me where is the (purpoted) discussion page where the unnamed adm told him about. Eventually, I invited him to explain his point of view here. And, yes, I mentioned the fact he had been warned, which he failed to aknowlege... Such is the person. I hope we can find together a reasonable solution to keep working -- al of us. Best wishes --G.dallorto 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Tamheing

Hi, looks like plain vandalism, someone to revert / delete ? Thanks, le Korrigan →bla 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's been reverted. Alphax (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sh'botay

User:Sh'botay is repeatedly vandalizing Image:FalkirkWheelSide 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg. Paul C 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The old revisions have been deleted. Alphax (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Reisio

User:Reisio is repeatedly vandalizing the following categories:

Regions of Morocco of the Western Sahara:

Category:Maps of Western Sahara

This user deletes any link between Western Sahara and Morocco, though Morocco administrates 80% of the territory as its Southern Provinces. --Juiced lemon 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there an admin to stop this vandal? ([5] [6] [7] [8])--Juiced lemon 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My talk page is not the one filled to the brim with complaints and ban notices - that'd be yours. ¦ Reisio 00:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright images being uploaded

Llabronco (talk · contribs), please shut him down now. --Kingboyk 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

They've earnt themselves a shiny new ban until they accept our copyright policies. Alphax (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Repetitive copyright violations

Gutenks (talk · contribs) doesn't stop uploading same copyrighted image, even after being warned --jynus (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours; we'll see what happens after that. Cnyborg 20:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism from 81.177.14.26

81.177.14.26 (talk · contribs) added graffiti in the form of random numbers to various pages. I wouldn't have reported this user, except that he or she seems intent on vandalizing. This user has also vandalized Meta with the same modus operandi before. --Ixfd64 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And... blocked for 6 months. Alphax (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this vandal is also using open proxies, but I could be wrong. --Ixfd64 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP appears to resolve to a webhost, but does not appear to have edited while logged in. Alphax (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This vandal is back as 66.240.221.36 (talk · contribs).

Thanks for the note, this IP has been blocked now, as well. --Matt314 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:EddiePlentyHoles.Sioux.1899.ws.jpg

Image:EddiePlentyHoles.Sioux.1899.ws.jpg has been vandalized by User:Roflcopter and his images, though reverted, are still causing problems on en.wikipedia.org [9]. Please help. -- Themightyquill 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the old version (no license for those anyway) and purged the image used on the page you mentioned. --Matt314 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism after nominating an image for deletion (done)

I have nominated an image of User:Susupetas for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Legal.jpg) and deleted two identical, unused images (Image:Laperie.jpg and Image:Legalassistancecenter.jpg). After nominating, IP 200.125.89.76 wrote on the deletion request and vandalized three of my user pages. Today again a IP (201.235.162.45) vandalized three of my user pages and defamed me ([10]).

Is it possible to check that this edits comes all from the same user/computer? In my eyes it is clear, but i cant prove it. --GeorgHH 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The IPs are both from Buenos Aires, Argentina, albeit from different ISPs; it appears to have stopped now. Alphax (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for information about this, Alphax. --GeorgHH 10:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking by Trojan

User:Trojan (Special:Contributions/Trojan) has blanked multiple pages, including Main Page twice, in the last few days. -- PFHLai 17:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello ?!? Nobody here ? This user needs a block ASAP !! Please also have a look at his image contributions. --Denniss 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked I believe... see the Problem User section for more info. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks vandal

Vandal still working wikibooks with no admins around - a steward would be useful - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)--82.153.146.149 08:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Appears over now --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal & impersonator

Hi! Αquilez (talk · contribs) is impersonating Aquilez (talk · contribs) and creatively editing images of Felipe Calderón [11]. Greetings. --Angus 10:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Infinite blocked. Can anyone checkuser him (%CE%91quilez (talk · contribs)) with Fecal (talk · contribs) ? Platonides 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean Fec%D0%B0l (talk · contribs). Yes, they're the same user; apart from using various open proxies, they appear to be on the same base ISP. Alphax (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 38.116.200.10

38.116.200.10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user vandalized several commons files going back almost a year.

This IP address has been a constant source of vandalism on the English Wikipedia: see en:User talk:38.116.200.10 and the contribution history. This account is blocked (for the 23rd time!) until September 2007. --A. B. 10 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Warned user continues uploading no copyright info/copyvio images

User Akamo (talk · contribs) is continuously uploading such images. It was warned firmly before. --jynus (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for three days, with warning of longer blocking if he continues. I'll take a look at his uploads during that period. Cnyborg 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 194.199.76.183

Please watch 194.199.76.183 (talk · contribs). Case of vandalism here. --AtonX 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Cactaceo

Italian main page is object of vandalism http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pagina_principale

I think should be better to lock the page M.violante 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to lock the page yet, I just reverted and warned the user. --Cold Shine 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP 84.120.248.119

This IP vandalizes categories and files regarding en:Pyrénées-Orientales, and has began an edit war to categorize these pages in Spanish categories (Pyrénées-Orientales is a French department). I ask an administrator to block this vandal. --Juiced lemon 10:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. It's a content dispute. Talk to anonymous user first, and do not make more reversions. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC) PD: Further info User:NielsF/Arbitration and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes.

To put deliberately wrong informations in a wiki project is vandalism. Your immediate intervention proves your collusion with this IP, and maybe it is your sock puppet. --Juiced lemon 11:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not wrong info. According to Wikipedia, w:Northern Catalonia is an overlapped region of France and Catalonia. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP blocked for two hours. I've post a message dispute because of JL. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Walter Humala

Here be trolls. See Walter Humala (talk · contribs) and the block log and talk page on English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, since the trollisms continue unhindered: the user has spent his time here mostly uploading copyright violations (see User talk:Walter Humala), including adding copyrighted lyrics without permission[12] and images outside the project's scope[13] whilst lying about the origins of copyrighted works[14], soliciting money for other websites[15], using crude language completely without provocation[16][17][18], pipelinking (George W) Bush and (Ariel) Sharon to "donkey" and "racist"[19], falsely quoting others[20], calling administrators nazists[21], making other judgemental remarks[22], chastising others for calling attention to their disruptive behaviour[23][24], and making other personal attacks[25][26]. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 71.234.9.178

No idea where you folk keep the warning templates (sorry) but you have a playful vandal around (I've reverted so far) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

They got bored but the IP has been used for vandalism here before - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)71.234.9.178 is also a vandal on wikipedia,wikinews,wikiquote wikconary,metawiki,wikispeices,world wikia,rune scape wiki,wikocracy,inheranince wiki,cell wiki,wikiversity,www.paleos.org,halopedia and many other sites.

Blocked for a week... I don't know the blocking policy on commons, so if someone more experienced could review I'd appreciate it. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you just acquire a sysop flag here? :P Please see commons:blocking policy. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

help vandal

ive found out the user 71.234.9.178 has been more active than prevoulsy thought ive found out that this user vandalises wikipedia,wikinews,wikiquote,metawiki,wikisource,wikiconary,wikibooks,wikiversity,runescape wiki,halopedia,wikinews,wikocracy,www.paleos.org,cell wiki,wikisimpsons,inherantance wiki,halopedia and many others and has benn known to use sock puppets on other sites and the banned users F.U.C.K and C.U.L.O(it means ass in spanish) may be sock puppets of this user based on the simalaritys of ther edits.what can we do about it?--Fang 16:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:72.159.148.3

Had a warning and been reverted - still playing - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a very long time. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

new user don't want to stop uploading copyrighted pictures

This user have been avertized but he upload again same picture with new name... Please see his last contributions on wikicommons. Thx --Patricia.fidi 14:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammer (I consider it vandalism!)

Special:Contributions/87.126.238.144 - not my language but I'm guessing a website called LadyBi is unlikely to contain Commons material. I reverted and warned the user - there is also a page with the info on I've marked for speedy Category:Lady Bi. A block may be in order - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

France & Canada

Continuing vandalism to these two pages and others. By User:MichelaMM & Special:Contributions/150.176.227.130. Blocks would be good - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gone quiet but when someone does get round to checking this and doing the blocks I think checkuser would be in order - IP and named user were doing the same kind of edits to pages at very similar times --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. --EugeneZelenko 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Sweetest Day Gallery

Industry vandals have descended upon the Sweetest Day article at Wikipedia to prevent a comprehensive article about the origins of Sweetest Day from being constructed there. Now they are attacking the Sweetest Day gallery at Commons. After observing the edits of these individuals over a period of months at Wikipedia, it is my belief that they are either a team of public relations writers or sock puppets. The screen names involved are Isotope23, Not a dog and Transfinite. Please protect the Sweetest Day gallery at Commons. Thank you. Miracleimpulse 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the discussion on English Wikipedia you appear to have contributed a fair deal of disruption, judging by your user talk page. The images appear to be POV or OR in this particular context. I've reverted to the latest version prior to yours, and protected the page. If your claims turn out to be valid (and we'll be watching how the debate evolvs on English Wikipedia) then the images can be reinserted. / Fred Chess 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the US census forms? How do US census forms constitute POV or original research? Note that no other editor has added anything to the the Sweetest Day gallery. The census forms shed light on Herbert Birch Kingston's role in the origins of Sweetest Day. Please restore the HBK census forms. Thank you. Miracleimpulse 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this. I've added some comments pertaining to this on the talkpage. I'm not even going to delve into the ridiculousness of the claim that I'm a sockpuppet or "public relations writer"; my Wikipedia edit history shows how silly that claim is. It might also be mentioned that a ban discussion is going on at the Wikipedia Community Noticeboard pertaining to Miracleimpulse.--Isotope23 02:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The en community has decided to give a topic ban to Miracleimpulse on the relevant articles. Given that Miracleimpulse is a single purpose account, and his edits on Commons are a continuation of those on en; should we take any action here?--Nilfanion 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban sounds about right... ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:192.139.27.18

Please watch 192.139.27.18 (talk · contribs) Alex Bakharev 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bully-uploads by User:Pietdenurste

User:Pietdenurste upload three images, all with non-encyclopedic value, that were used in a bully-article on nl-wikipedia. Please delete his upload and/or block this user. --Tuvic 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Gedaan. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tuvic 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiny changes by Korean IPs 222.120.74.…

222.120.74.38 (talk · contribs)
222.120.74.66 (talk · contribs) – note the talk page edits
222.120.74.247 (talk · contribs)
222.120.74.250 (talk · contribs)
…

Some edits by these IPs seem reasonable, e.g. [27], but most of the edits are a kind of tiny looking vandalism, mostly on image information pages or templates (mostly license templates). See [28], [29] and [30] for examples of such annoying edits. --Überraschungsbilder 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I semi protected some of the templates. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Portrait of a person edited into an attack image

As notified on Commons:Village pump#Distortion of the information : an example an image of the former, still living Germany soccer trainer Berti Vogts has been graphically manipulated into a distorted face in order to mock at the depicted person, see Image:Berti Vogts hu.JPG. As there is still no special noticeboard for such cases and as of Commons:Vandalism attack images have to be considered as vandalism that not only insults the depicted person but also hurts Wikimedia/Commons, immediate and decisive action should be taken against the uploader and the picture should be removed. -- Túrelio 07:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it as an attack picture. As the uploader is inactive on de: and Commons since October, 2006, I did not take action against him. AFAIK attack images are considered a form of vandalism and speedy-deleted, as the {{Attackimage}} template makes it clear. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User Nnapulitano

User Nnapulitano (talk · contribs) has a large history of copyright violations.

After trying to make him understand the license issues, he continues uploading images without permission. Now that he knows how Commons works, he is uploading images with a bogus "self" license (e.g.: Image:Bush conference.jpg, Image:Popolazione di napoli.jpg) because this way the copyright violations are undetected. I ask for an audit of all his uploads and to take actions to avoid more undetected copyvios.

--jynus (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week - I am no expert but the recent uploads look suspect to me. They should be reviewed by an admin more experienced in copyright but very few look at all like "own" work. Quite a record and a recent warning of a block from another admin. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Total bogus. If there are no objections I'm going to delete them all. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Yonatan ^talk 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted a whole bunch of obvious copyvios. Others have been {{Nsd}}ed. I am now awaiting a who angry mob of es users spamming my talk page, because some images where quite in use... -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Smpl02 and User:Smpl09

Smpl02 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Smpl03 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Smpl06 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Smpl09 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Jabbar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Djama (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Mappase (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Beeyan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Both user are disrupting the deletion process of images they uploaded by removing the delete requests several times, although I have warned them. I suspect also that they are the same person. Please see their contributions. Indon 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave "judging" the contributions to more experienced people. However I would considered them likely to be the same person (CU should be carried out IMO). They are not currently active but if they do revert the delete tags again, post here. I would certainly have no problem blocking either or both --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks, but it appears other username did the revert. Indon 14:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one involved now User:Jabbar - removed a delete tag (I have reverted). Also some "interesting" voting on the deletion request - worth keeping an eye --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And another one User:Beeyan - removing the same delete tags --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no doubt that those are one and the same user. I am blocking all but their main account and leave a warning on their talk page. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Smpl02, User:Smpl09, User:Mappase, User:Jabbar, User:Beeyan indefinately for being obvious sockpuppets. Bryan blocked User:Smpl03, User:Smpl06. User:Djama. User(s) who act, talk, walk the same can be treated like one person. -- Cat ^chi? 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What a mess, I have organised data there for you people just waking up: Commons:Deletion requests/Private scouting and school images (2007-04-04) -- Cat ^chi? 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)