Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 3

user:Mariluchi21

Some edits of user:Mariluchi21: [1] and [2]. --Jarekt (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

S/he was just warned. Keep an eye out for more. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Spacial 74

Resolved

This user's contributions seem to be nothing more than out-of-scope/vanity images, but are currently in use on es:Los mesitos (tagged for speedy deletion). What's best in a case like this: wait for the article to be deleted and then clean up the images, or simply remove the images and warn the user right now? –[[)

86.4.127.20 (talk · contribs)

IP vandalized past final warning. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Editor at Large (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

24.229.233.239 (talk · contribs)

Continual userpage vandalism. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done IP blocked for 1 week. --Eusebius (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized picture

On 6 April 2009, at 00:43, Dawoodabro (talk · contribs) erased the picture of Stanford scholar Jean-Marie Apostolidès uploaded by Marie-Josèphe Apostolidès on 1 August 2007 at 08:07, by replacing it with someone entirely unrelated to him. I have unsuccessfully tried to revert this vandalism, and your help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. W. C. Minor (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted the upload and deleted the newly uploaded file, as it is probably a copyright violation and we don't have a permission. Please note, that reverting file changes can be done in the file history. Look at the file description page and you will see the file history at the bottom of the page. Next to each file revision, there is a link that allows you to revert the file to that revision. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

78.180.243.218 (talk · contribs)

Continual image page vandalism. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange kind of vandalism, looks like a user who is trying to do something but failing. I asked him on his talk page what he is trying to do. Should be blocked if he continues. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, this is definitely vandalism (my own images were effected, and I know when they were taken). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to block after they vandalised two of my images and continued to vandalise others however they stopped after 1 minute of my watching the contributions. I didn't see the point in blocking with them no longer editing/vandalising as blocking is only a preventive tool. Bidgee (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ackwayus-1939.jpg

This is being used as am image to support a hoax article on Wikipedia. It seems likely this too is misrepresenting authorship and copyright and may be an outright hoax as well. 71.139.25.108 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the image was unused and apparently uploaded for vandalistic purposes (use in a hoax article), that both the claimed author and the subject of the picture appear to be completely nonexistent and that the issue has already been discussed at en.wikipedia, I've gone ahead and speedily deleted the image. Feel free to undelete if you think I was hasty — given that this is my first deletion here on Commons, I hope I haven't made a complete mess of it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam URL

Please block that url. Reason: [12]

--MichaelFrey (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a one edit IP, so blocking seems fairly pointless. Has there been any other vandalism from this url? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this from a similar IP but that was last year. It's the only other edit ever from the entire /16 range. Wknight94 ^talk 16:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chav.jpg

This image has been vandalized and there are 3 versions after the correct one (my version) with all right the summary and categories. Thank you.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the file page. Thanks for the notice. Huib talk 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, and reverted to the last unvandalized description page. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Goatse Rulz

ResolvedHas been dealt with. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 10:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Goatse Rulz

Uploaded goatse pic to vandalize en.wikipedia, inappropriate username as well. Amplitude101 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:User cs

Because of vandalism on Template:User cs and because this template is widely used please lock this template. Thank you. --Ragimiri (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the account with an expiry time of indefinite. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 16:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Valkýra 333

Please block him/her. Account only for vandalism [13]. --Dezidor (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done I blocked this account for 24 hours. Sv1xv (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

??? wtf, 24 h for this vandalism??? It was a personal attack ("you fuck young boys..." like this one, so please block this user indef like in other cases. Thanks, Contributions/66.197.220.198 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a block untill the end of time is needed after one edit, I think this user will not return under this name so blocking indeff is useless. We can always change the block when it is needed. Huib talk 21:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/201.201.49.18

Two vandalized pages --Jarekt (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

They stopped  — Mike.lifeguard 14:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Visacard

User:Visacard has twice vandalized 2 pages by replacing text with the URL of a commercial site, see Special:Contributions/Visacard. I have blocked this id for 7 days, as his intention are obvious. Sv1xv (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and good job. One of the vandalisms was on a image that I uploaded. Royalbroil 01:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr Iraj Mirzaee

Insulting me; a case of sock puppetry; copyright violation. Raamin (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Gourdaafarid; a shining example of personal attack! Raamin (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I informed about this case earlier; no response yet. Raamin (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

All permablocked and deleted. Might need an entry at COM:RFCU to look for sleepers (as were found at meta). Wknight94 ^talk 01:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I had filed a CU request here on Commons, with at least three accounts: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/HamidGhanbari --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Wknight94 and Eusebius; I hadn't seen that CU request. Why is User:Dr Iraj Mirzaee, who uploaded File:Land Rover Ranger Rover..jpg not permblocked yet?

Already blocked by mike --Mardetanha ^talk 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

increased vandalism?

For other admins to know: for antijewish/Nazi vandalism on File:Simplicissimus Unsern Feinden.gif I've semi-protected the image and blocked (1 week) the perpetrator 85.180.171.244 (talk · contribs) and warned him that next time we might notify his provider.
Overall, I've an impression of increased (general) vandalism over the last few days. --Túrelio (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

False deletion request.

Hello. I'm not sure how to act at File:Buses at Wimbledon.JPG. An IP (83.216.150.201) has added a deletion request template with a reason which is only vandalism. I could just remove the template, but I wouldn't know how to warn the IP. Any ideas please?! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your help! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Smallballz

Possibly inappropriate content and username. Splarka (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Content deleteted, Thanks for the notice. Huib talk 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Stalked and impersonated by User:Noobiatech

I am not sure if this is best venue for this notice here on commons. Anyway, could and admin please look at this user's edits and take proper action. The same user was reported en.wikipedia' ANI. Thank you, Nubiatech (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Male kodiak bear face.JPG

Newly create user User:FrozenVoid vandalized File:Male kodiak bear face.JPG. I have reverted, but user account in question should probably be watched for future vandalism. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've warned them - block on next inappropriate action though. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:SkipGates.jpg

Resolved

Vandalism from Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (now protected) has spilled over to Commons. I need help protecting File:SkipGates.jpg and blocking the associated accounts. I've also commented over at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#File:SkipGates.jpg. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ho hum & thanks. Image file now protected, troublesome user & two puppets accounts blocked  job done?! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed protection setting (Duration = 1 week). I thought other user can upload other image. Regards.--Kwj2772 (msg) 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Far enough, probably indef was wrong - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The comments and activity of BRONSON77 should be supervised

I am not sure if this is best venue for this notice here on commons. The user BRONSON77 has removed the name of Jesus Martinez Frias (a prestigious senior geologist from Spain) from the wikipedia website entitled "Geología (in Spanish) "http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolog%C3%ADa". indicating, as a first sentence, that "he has not relevance to be included". This is not correct and, above all, it is not true.

I included Dr. Jesus Martinez Frias because, in my opinion, he is, at present, one of the most relevant Spanish geologists. Please, simply google his name! He has a lot of scientific contributions. He is the only Spanish geologist who has a personal and scientific website hosted in a NASA project: http://leonid.arc.nasa.gov/s-jmfrias.html, and he was the Vice-President of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD). In addition he has published numerous scientific papers in the best journals (including Nature) and he is considered one of the best meteoriticists and planetary geologists in Spain. I think it is important to consider that he was Co-Chair of the NASA Astrobiology Institute Mars Focus Group and he was one of the recipients of the NASA Group Achievement Awards in 2006.

Many contributions coming from BRONSON77 are related with geological topics from Spain and very curiously with meteorites. This can be easily verified.

I feel that the removal of Dr. Jesus Martinez Frias from the website of "Geologia" is due to some type of "personal animadversion" of BRONSON77. Could some wikipedia "patrullero" or administrator" please check and, if possible, correct this injustice? Dr. Jesus Martinez Frias deserves to be included in the website.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.45 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23. Jul. 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but here you are really at the wrong place for that problem. There is surely an administrator board or equivalent on :es-Wikipedia. Take a look here. --Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The uploads of BRONSON77 (talk · contribs) look fine to me.[14] His/her talk page history looks fine, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:Your question on my talkpage:

Hi unknown,

you are likely refering to this edit, aren't you? Well, BRONSON77 only removed the name Jesus Martinez Frias from the list "Geólogos destacados", where the only entry for Frias was a red linked "Jesús Martínez Frías (b. 1960)". Also it seems Frias was the youngest person listed there. The removal of such an entry would be fully o.k. in most, if not all wikipedias. If you want that name to stay there, I recommend writing an own article about "Jesus Martinez Frias". This article could then eventually again linked in that list. In addition you should first talk to BRONSON77 about such a problem. --Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Georgian Flag

Georgian flag is same as the russian flag. looks like yall been hacked by some russian type georgia and see the flag and the coat of arms is changed to russian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.83.151 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done No problems found in Category:Flags of Georgia or Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Georgia. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:71.8.199.1

User talk:71.8.199.1 This IP has been blocked multiple times on the English language wikipedia [15] for multiple edits to highway articles that are incorrect, bordering on nonsense. It looks like while the block is in affect on Wikipedia they have moved on to vandalizing image descriptions on commons with similar edits. Please check the IP's contributions and keep an eye out. Dave (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note this user has a fascination with creating pages for [[Category:Interstate 70 in Nevada]], which does not exist and is a hoax. This was the primary reason for the wikipedia block.Dave (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK this user has been busy. All of the categories they have created are for highways that do not exist. I'm checking commons deletion policy, there is no method to delete for hoaxes. If someone can advise how commons handles hoaxes. I can flag the ones that are. Dave (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well... depends if there's any media to categorise for those hoaxes. Maps of the fictional highways, roadsigns, etc. We don't delete things just because they're not real, though we often do if there's nothing to categorise. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP is doing nothing useful and is just continuing the behaviour that got it blocked on wikipedia. Whilst images of a hoax highway are possibly useful, mislabelling and miscategorising images of real highways as the fake isn't. I've rolled back the edits, deleted the empty categories and given user a final warning. I've also notified the admin on wikipedia who last blocked the account.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And he's back [16]. Sigh. Dave (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked. Not sure I understand what is going on so folk may wish to review. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You did the right thing, this IP is making a big mess. Checking the other wikimedia projects, this IP has been blocked on at least 3 others, and on the French and English wikipedias they are up their 3rd block. In a nutshell, they are vandalizing highway articles and images, by renaming the content with names of highways that do not exist.Dave (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the administrator on enwiki who blocked this IP. Apparently this IP has vandalized at the French and German Wikipedias as well. Perhaps it is time to call in a steward? --Rschen7754 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm an administrator on the WP:fr, this IP will be blocked soon considering the repeated non-sense pages he creates there. Thanks Rschen7754 for the message on my discussion page--LPLT (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folk - re-blocked for a month, hopefully they will get bored :) BTW if you want a global block you need Meta. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Luxo's tool is down. :| The block expired on enwiki and the IP edited again, blocked 1 month. --Rschen7754 (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this guy has gone to the Swedish Wikipedia as well - http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=71.8.199.1&blocks=true. --Rschen7754 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested global block on Meta, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And they did it. Globally blocked for 1 month. --Rschen7754 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a chance this IP has returned as User:71.8.197.170. This IP is making the same type of edits, but not near as prolific.Dave (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a note on LPLT's talk page, as the blocking admin on the French wikipedia. He's already moved to there. Wow, I'll give him this much, he's determined.Dave (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the user is back again, please see Special:Contributions/71.8.197.170. Regards from Swedish Wikipedia. --MagnusA (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, deleted the pages the user created, and reverted their edits. Thank you for informing us. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Serial copyvio uploader

It is time to block A22ount (talk · contribs) for good. In spite of several warnings on his talk page back in June, he continued to upload blatant copyright violations, some of which were only just deleted yesterday. User went as far as to obscure text on the image to hide the fact it came from Flickr. Still has one copyvio upload, a copyrighted seal of an educational institution. This person does not appear willing to adhere to basic copyright conventions and/or Wikimedia Commons policy. Multixfer (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now. I deleted all from this account the last days, the latest upload seems to be not a copyright violation but an userpageimage without a license. The talk page blanking on w:en:User:A22ount and use of his userpage on Wikipedia as a w:WP:MYSPACE is not an issue here. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

on File:Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg

I was looking at this image of the US bill of rights and in the section Licensing information someone has inserted a negative coment not related to the bill of rights "black are evil" I'm not Black but I still beleive in this day and age this kind of crap just doesn't belong, people just can't seem to grow up and still post stupid childish things. Anyway figured I'd mention it. Oh by the way love your sites, WIKI Rules!

97.119.9.219 05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)DH

I removed it, thanks. But feel free to remove that kind of crap yourself if you notice it; it's a wiki, anyone can edit. –Tryphon^☂ 05:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Many, many deletions request by user Iconoclast

The user Iconoclast has been blocked for one day on 10 September. He/she has now made many deletion requests that are not relevant in my opinion see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Iconoclast Wouter (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yann (talk · contribs) has re-blocked Iconoclast (talk · contribs) for three days. Wknight94 ^talk 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Pedro ferreira (talk · contribs)

Hello Pedro ferreira (talk · contribs) seems to continue to upload FU album covers, I have asked him to stop, as well as tagged his uploads as copy vios, but he continues to upload. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted a warning on his talk page. Next time I shall block him for 3 days. Sv1xv (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

He did it again. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, blocked for 3 days. Sv1xv (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:MarioDinoPucca3 (talk).

MarioDinoPucca3 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Despite being warned three times and blocked for 2 weeks, MarioDinoPucca3 has uploaded another 3 copyrighted images today (1 Super Mario Galaxy logo and 2 non-free videogame screenshots.) Time for another block? cflm (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. He (or she) uploaded unfree file continuously even after he had been blocked. Kwj2772 (msg) 08:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

here - warned but might be persistent? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Then again it may just be a language misunderstanding? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he is trying to translate pages. Kwj2772 (msg) 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Going back & reviewing - yes, but they were removing the existing info (including language links) at the same time sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally they've been translating parts of COM:HD, which has been reverted now. I left another message on their talk page & would be happy to have this solved without blocking (in case of recurrence). →Nagy 13:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - blocking not required & thanks for assisting Nagy. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio's by User:Zick2 (talk)

Zick2 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

User's history:

• "File:Empiredogs loveattack.jpg" speedy deleted for copyright violation
• "File:EmpireDogs_Pressbild_omslag.jpg" speedy deleted for copyright violation
• "File:Empiredogs_pressimage.jpg" speedy deleted for copyright violation
• "File:Pressbild_omslag_600.jpg" speedy deleted for copyright violation
• "File:Empiredogs debaser09.jpg" speedy deleted for copyright violation
• Warned about recent copyright violations
• "File:Empiredogs debaser09.jpg" re-uploaded and speedy deleted for copyright violation
• Warned about recreating deleted content
• Blocked by User:Túrelio for 1 day (Uploading unfree files after warnings) on Sept. 15, 2009
• "File:Pressbild omslag 600.jpg" re-uploaded and deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pressbild omslag 600.jpg for having an ambiguous copyright status
• "File:Empiredogs goodbye.jpg" speedy deleted for copyright violation
• "File:Empiredogs loveattack.jpg" re-uploaded and speedy deleted for copyright violation
• "Image:Omslagtext.gif" speedy deleted for missing permission
• "File:OhLord.jpg" deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:OhLord.jpg for having an ambiguous copyright status

Requesting another block for uploading unfree files after warnings. cflm (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As all his uploads have been deleted now, IMHO we could wait whether he uploads again. If again clear copyvios, he gets blocked for a longer time. (@Cflm001, thanks for notifying; next time better use COM:AN/U.) --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection on Venetico

Hello! The page Venetico is continously vandalized by anonymous users, so I request a protection for it. Thank you. -- Vonvikken (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the persons behind the two ip-addresses that vandalised the page that any more of that will get them blocked. Mind you, they had not been warned yet. Since they haven't done anything there since 23:25 UTC, I see no reason to protect the page at this moment. Protecting pages is a measure that should not be taken lightly, afaic. Better block the vandals, so they won't get in the way of good willing users. Wutsje (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heatsinkchina (talk · contribs)

Do you block promotional usernames here like we do on Wikipedia? If so, please block User:Heatsinkchina, already blocked on Wikipedia. This user (and his gang of sockpuppets) are responsible for a large amount of spam for www.heatsinkchina.com in en:heatsink and other articles. I know he has only uploaded one image here, but that image is part of the spamming on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 12:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. However, we usually observe a little bit how a user behaves on Commons, before we take measures. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but behaviour on Wikipedia is becoming very aggressive [17][18][19]. There is still the question of the promotional user name. Are these allowed on Commons? The proposed Commons:Username policy says they are not, and this seems to be the consensus, even though the policy has not been formalised. SpinningSpark 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really nasty threats against you. For that you might request an IP- or IP-range block on :en. I've left him a vandalism note on his :en-talkpage. However, I'm not sure what would be the outcome if we block this username here and whether that would really help to deal with them on :en. Any other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am an administrator on en and have already implemented some range blocks but I can only go so far with that, there are too many IPs to catch them all without collateral damage. I know you cannot help with the problem on en, I am suggesting that you block this account as a promotional username which will have the additional beneficial effect of preventing the account uploading further images for use with spamming en or any other wiki. SpinningSpark 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

His image is gone. Let's see what happens now. Before blocking this account I would really like to have the opinion of 1 or 2 other Commons admins. In case he inserts the image again on :en (without that we became aware of it), please leave us a note. --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Túrelio that there is no reason to block this user on Commons yet. If he starts to misbehave here, he will be blocked, and the duration of the block will probably be influenced by his behavior on en.wp. But a preventive block is usually a bad idea. –Tryphon^☂ 09:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/83.13.252.82

All edits by this IP changed categories to incorrect categories. They are all reversed now, but may be we should drop him/her a message. --Jarekt (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Left the friendly message :).Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tharan2 (talk · contribs)

Hi. I just deleted an image and blocked the user for personal attacks. Maybe we should remove/hide image and history. --MGA73 (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have oversighted the revisions containing personal information. Rama (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not at my own PC and could not request assistance via IRC so this was the only thing I could think of :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the image should be oversighted as well. This seems to be put on Commons without the agreement of the depicted person and is IMHO a gross privacy violation. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally, but this image appears to be from another site anyway (Wayback has the site archived, also note the watermark). Rocket000 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism from 86.11.38.174

Would someone be so kind as to block this IP: User:86.11.38.174. Their entire (very brief) edit history here consists of vandalizing my talk page [20]. They are stalking me across multiple projects in the (mistaken) belief that I am an American Conservative. They have been given several blocks at WP so now are concentrating on the other projects. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Commons does not accept vandalizm but his last edit is three days ago so blocking would be a bit strange or even useless.

I added your page on my watchlist so I can respond faster when it happends again.

Huib talk 16:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Please re-report the IP here if they continue to vandalize. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much to the both of you. This isn't a big deal, the vandalism at WP was more vulgar than that which occurred here. It's just annoying as I rarely visit the other projects.. Perhaps the best thing is to look on the bright side and see it as motivation to learn more about Commons. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios at File:Comic image missing.svg

A pile of copyvios were just uploaded on top of the above linked image. Apparently they weren't even in SVG format, so they can't be parsed to preview them, but they are released for "promotional use" so aren't allowed on Commons, so the offending revisions presumably need deleting. (I've reverted for the time being as damage limitation.) Stannered (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - That said, does anyone know how to delete them all at once? I had to delete each revision on its own. Tiptoety ^talk 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the only way would be to delete the whole thing, and then selectively restore the good revisions. –Tryphon^☂ 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankies :o) Stannered (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Scema13

Is uploading useless copyrighted pics and using them for vandalism on other projects. Already blocked on enwiki. SpaceFlight89 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[OK] Blocked indefinitely by Abigor. Kwj2772 (msg) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sekjyhn

User:Sekjyhn uploaded Malicious content (javascript): File:Acr2EF7.tmp.pdf. --ThT (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• no actions taken Thanks for the note, both the uploads are deleted but I didn't do anything further this user was only active in May to upload two files after that he never returned so warning, blocking watching doesn't have any use. Thanks for the note anyways. Huib talk 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

CoolBeanz (talk · contribs)

Please have a look at his contributions. He alread received a warning in March 2009. -- Common Good (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - User blocked for 72 hours, and all uploads deleted, thanks for the note. Huib talk 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Roadfighter82

User vandalized Template:First steps tour for commercial purposes. So far these were his only contributions. --Tauwasser (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Warned for spam. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:Acpoteete

Hello. The said user is currently uploading a large series of cd cover art that can be found from various sources using Google and indicates "copyrighted free use" in the license section. I flagged several of his images as cv but he keeps going. Thanks for your help. --chris 論 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved thanks to Platonides. --chris 論 18:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Georgians Kartvelebi Akhali01.jpg

Anon user with IP address 79.177.101.33 (which changes constantly) keeps vandalizing the image [21] by tagging it with deletion tag. When requesting explanation to why is he demanding the removal of this image, this anon fails to respond or present any argument [22]. However, he blatantly keeps tagging this images with del tag without any explanation. He did that before (and while i was away and not monitoring my images) he kept tagging images. I want to ask administrator to either protect the image or warn the anon user from vandalism, who specifically targets Georgia related images. Thanks in advance. Iberieli (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, 79.180.0.56 (talk · contribs) has tried to remove this section twice. --J.smith (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Twice? This section was removed six times by an 79.-IP. --Túrelio (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

87.90.65.149 (talk · contribs)

Please stop him. He is still active after he received a warning. -- Common Good (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - Huib talk 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC) SO PLEASE DO VADILIZE

Needs attention

This one - used to vandalise an en wp page - may be worth blocking, not likely to be a useful user under the circumstances. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

417 TinEye hits, no comment. --Martin H. (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of daylight-saving-time map

Could someone please keep an eye on File:DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png? In honor of the daylight saving switchover currently going on in North America, someone evidently vandalized the map. Would it be appropriate to protect it for a day or two? Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it. I don't think it's necessary to take any action at the moment, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this account

• Keep an eye on this account Fafafaf]. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Late, but indef blocked as obviously vandal-only account. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to "game" image deletion discussion

I believe these edits by User:Mustafa54 are at least close to vandalism. I've reverted them; if anyone feels further followup is worthwhile, feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Formally you are right, in regard to the removal of the rfd-discussion. However, it seems to be a totally new user and he may no yet understand our procedures. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No vandalism, just an attempt to re-nominate the image for deletion. Hm, actually it seems our "Nominate for deletion" script does that. Off to fix it... Lupo 08:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it wasn't the script, but I still contend it wasn't malicious intent but just ignorance about our procedures here. Lupo 08:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

adding shoped missiles

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toopkooneh_Ghadeem.jpg someone is adding missiles to Muslim related pictures

User blocked, as per Wikipedia this is also a vandalism only account on Commons. However, the missle was really hard to find in the image, so good eyes. --Martin H. (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Abigor and mass deletion

User:Abigor has yesterday morning deleted 572 photos uploded by me!!!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_User:Quahadi

it seems that he did not watch at all what was he deleteing.Among them there were entire Categories: Gabela,Ljubinje landcapes cementery Korčula cementery ,[23]... It is not possible that ALL of them were useless !!!

Please could somebody review this? It seems that he took mission to delete all my images!

--Anto (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I did see that mass deletion in the deletion log. Out of all the categories you linked, only Category:Korčula has items in it, and you neither created it nor is it deleted. The deleted categories have no content in them, so why undelete? If you can provide cases where the categories deleted were not empty, then maybe we could look at undeleting those. Killiondude (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see that he accidentally deleted Category:Churches in Ljubuški. Somebody else recreated it, but I restored it anyways, to keep the edit history preserved. In any case, Abigor's actions aren't vandalism. Let us know if you see anything else that needs to be undeleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for letting me know about this topic, its always nice to get a opportunity to give my opinion instead of finding it out on my own.

I did not take mission to delete your files, also I never had any involvement with you before and I do not know this user from other wiki's, my deletions are based on a neutral point of view on a deletion request that clearly had a consensus to delete, and I can totally understand that you don't like that your files are deleted but if I didn't do it a other admin would have closed it.

Yes I deleted the categories also, because there is no need to keep empty cats and somebody will step by and mark them for deletion so I just deleted them so nobody else would have to mark them for deletion.

The 572 files where all form low quality, a quality so nobody could use them, and some didn't even had a clear shot on what the subject was, there where like 100 blurry pictures from parts of road that are like all the same. And yes maybe there are some that could be used if somebody really wanted to, but I checked all the files, I saw every thumb and maybe there was 1 or 2 lets say 10 pictures that could be used there would be still a great part Out of scope. Huib talk 17:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to COM:UNDEL ---- a much more proper venue ---- so we should close this one up IMHO. Wknight94 ^talk 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Shustov v. TenOfAllTrades

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

Exercise programs such as Tai Chi are promoted by gerontologists to improve health in old age.

Case 1. At 08:01, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image from Categories: Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Gerontology.

At 14:59, 5 November 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image with the inscription “rv banned editor”.

In less than an hour, at 15:46, 5 November 2009, User:Zach425 substituted the removed image with the one to the right from Category: Tai Chi Chuan.

As the matter of fact, the Wikipedia List of banned users [24] does not contain User:Shustov in it.

Due to foregoing, it looks like TenOfAllTrades created its private blacklist which, apparently, has been implemented in Wikipedia rather successfully (see the cases to follow).

Physical fitness is an attribute required for service in virtually all military forces.

Case 2. At 20:06, 18 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image from Categories: Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Physical fitness.

At 13:59, 4 January 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed it with the summary “remove excess decorative image” but retained another image from Categories: 2000s swimwear | People of the United States Marine Corps | Sportspeople from the United States | Triathlon | Young men | Men of the United States | Male toplessness | Running shown to the right.

As the only image option for the article on physical fitness, it rather glorifies the United States Marine Corps special military training in general and Lance Corporal Anthony M. Madonia toplessness in particular than illustrates anything else.

Case 3. At 17:53, 19 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image above from Categories: Exercise | Challenges to physical balance | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Vestibular system. At 03:32, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image as “superfluous decorative image (?!)

Case 4. At 00:49, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the image on the left of an old man practicing weight training from Categories: Weight training | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Weight training.

At 03:34, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed it as “superfluous, promotional image”.

The “promotional” of what, by the way? Does it promote any services or goods? Does it contains any names of people or businesses?

Case 5. At 20:37, 28 May 2009, User:69.108.101.89 added the right image from Categories: Exercise | Challenges to physical balance | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Longevity.

At 22:00, 28 May 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image without explanation.

Case 6. At 01:56, 24 December 2008, User:Shustov added the left image from Categories: Exercise | Acrobatics | Gerontology | Fitness | Fitness training for seniors to the article Jumping.

At 00:51, 4 September 2009, User:Mokele performed “Replacing image with much better one, illustrating frog joint addition and bone elongation”. Apropos, the “much better” in the sense of what? The taste?

Case 7. At 22:46, 27 December 2008, User:Shustov added the right image from Categories: Exercise | Acrobatics | Gerontology | Fitness | Asana | Fitness training for seniors to the article Equipoise .

At 03:28, 19 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades removed the image as “decorative, promotional image” (?!).

At 18:38, 24 October 2009, User:79.67.66.242 undid the previous edit.

At 18:55, 24 October 2009, User:DMacks removed the image again.

At 16:45, 29 October 2009, User:69.108.112.170 restored that image.

At 16:57, 29 October 2009, TenOfAllTrades reverted edits by User:69.108.112.170.

At 01:48, 3 November 2009, User:ExplosiveArsenal reverted edits by TenOfAllTrades.

At 01:49, 3 November 2009, User:Glane23 (apparently, a sock-puppet of TenOfAllTrades) reverted edits by User:ExplosiveArsenal.

Will anybody help me to cleanup those wiki-termites infested articles, please? Thanks, Shustov (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Response

Well, that's remarkable. This is now the third place that Shustov has cross-posted the identical message (first post, second post) and the first repost he's made after I asked him to withdraw or delete these unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks shotgunned at an assortment of editors. For anyone who really wants the nitty-gritty, I've provided a point-by-point response to his absurd claims at User:TenOfAllTrades/rebuttal. My comments are interspersed in italic.

The short version is this — Shustov was banned from the English Wikipedia for an ongoing pattern of self-promotion, plagiarism, and personal attacks. (He is also banned from the German Wikipedia, though my German isn't sufficiently good to interpret his block log there.) Unfortunately, it appears that he is now migrating those same conduct problems to Commons. Relevant to this spurious vandalism report is his ongoing attempt to spread the word about his personal fitness program, "Upstream Fitness" across Wikipedia projects.

Sometime in 2002 (or earlier, that's just the oldest available Internet Archive entry), Shustov posted an advert for his fitness program in his personal, off-wiki webspace. Here's the site: [25]. It starts off: "Ultimate Fitness: Age breaking technique — you can get it even at 65 or later. UPSTREAM is a brand new and extremely effective system of physical FITNESS. It can make miracles...." As far as I can tell, no other group, individual, corporation, or personal trainer has ever picked up his training program — at least none have ever left a trace of doing so on the web.

This spring and summer, Shustov uploaded a dozen or so images to Commons, placing them in a category of his own creation, the now-deleted Category:Upstream fitness. All of the image files start with the words "UPSTREAM FITNESS", and all seem to feature the same man (almost certainly Shustov) engaged in his exercise program. Commons admins can verify that the category description included a link back to Shustov's 'Upstream Fitness' web page. At about the same time, he began a process of 'spreading the word' across multiple Wikipedias (including the edits noted above in the collapse box, in which he is ignoring his block on enwiki). It doesn't seem to matter if he knows the local language or not; he's perfectly content to add inappropriate English captions to other-language Wikipedias: one glaring example. As well, he sprayed dozens of inappropriate references into Wikipedia articles, advertising media in his Upstream Fitness category on Commons: pt, en, fr, sk, ru, ro, among many others. During a two-week trial unblock on enwiki (in which I offered him a final chance at redemption), he created the self-promotional article w:Upstream fitness in direct violation of his unblock terms — which was speedied almost instantaneously by another admin as obvious advertising.

A little over a month ago, I nominated the Commons category for deletion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Upstream fitness. I couldn't see any other way to get Shustov to stop plugging himself all over Wikipedia. After a month without opposition or further comment, a (perhaps-too-generous) Commons admin instead renamed the category to Category:Fitness training for seniors.

And now, here we are. I'm being accused of vandalism and sockpuppetry, because Shustov is confusing editorial judgement and ban enforcement with a vendetta. Can I ask a Commons admin to step in here to deal with him? He just doesn't seem to 'get' what Wikipedia is about, and he keeps moving further and further at cross-purposes. He has had many chances, and it may be time to pull the plug. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Shustov; Most of your allegations of misconduct are old and did not occur here. Please understand that we can do nothing about conduct that occurred on English Wikipedia. Has TenOfAllTrades violated Commons guidelines or policies recently here on Commons? Unsubstantiated allegations of sock-puppetry on other projects are unhelpful. On Commons, COM:CHECK may be used, but do not make requests without good reason and do not allege sock-puppetry anywhere without evidence. Do not be uncivil and imply that other editors are termites; you are hereby admonished to desist.

TenOfAllTrades; The result of Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Upstream fitness was inconclusive, but I think most editors would agree its rename to Category:Fitness training for seniors. It seems useful and the images seem to be in COM:SCOPE. The filenames raise some concern, but they may and probably should be renamed. Further, I understand that Shustov has misbehaved on other projects, but what has s/he done here on Commons that requires a block, indefinite or otherwise?

Please be brief. Diffs are appreciated. It suffices to link to images; please don't display them on this page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Walter Siegmund: One case of wrongful removal of an image is a mistake, no big deal. However, a multiple removal of images (7 cases mentioned above plus at least 6 in non-English articles) from the Category of 12 (twelve) reminds a conspiracy. Especially, if you take into account that all 12 images were contributed by one User (it was me) and 13 removals were executed also by one User (it was User:TenOfAllTrades). Most of the seven reported cases of removal were rather recent, namely: 1 – January 2009, 1 – May 2009, 1 – September 2009, 3 – October 2009, 1 – November 2009. Despite the alleged misbehavior by User:TenOfAllTrades occurred on Wikipedia, it was Wikimedia Commons which was also abused. It really did happen once when I said "apparently, a sock-puppet of TenOfAllTrades" because the interval between two opposite editing actions was one (1) second only! On the other hand, I witnessed many times how User:TenOfAllTrades easily called some users sock-puppets of mine just because they disagreed with him and blocked them for good immediately; see, e.g., what happened to User:ExplosiveArsenal on 3 November 2009 after his editing of the article Equipoise. Actually, I would not insist on using the word "wiki-termite": I quite happy with your new title of the case. Shustov (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please understand that we can do nothing about conduct that occurred on English Wikipedia. Have TenOfAllTrades, or the other editors you mention, violated Commons guidelines or policies recently here on Commons? If not, we can't help you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a COM:SCOPE issue in play here. Shustov appears to be willing to make available his images freely, and in principle medium-resolution pictures of an old guy exercising could serve some sort of useful purpose; in that sense, there's no direct problem with Shustov's content on Wikimedia Commons.

More troubling is his conduct across Wikimedia projects. Since he was banned on enwiki, he has been using Commons as his base of operations for promoting his exercise program. Note that immediately after his 'Upstream fitness' category was renamed, he was back at adding 'Upstream fitness' to the category description ([26]) and edit warring with the admin who renamed the category ([27]). As noted above, he has been adding references to his program all across the Wikipedia project, though usually his activity on any one project is low enough that he doesn't draw blocks or bans. (He also often edits while logged out, which tends to further discourage monitoring.) While his conduct here (with the exception of the edit warring, personal attacks, and self-promotion) has been generally harmless, Commons does not exist in a vacuum. There is a certain responsibility on the part of admins here to deal with problems which may affect the entire Wikipedia project and not just this piece of it. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As an "old guy", myself, I'm not sure your making your case in the best possible way. While I agree that Commons has a responsibility to other projects, I'm not sure I understand how allowing Shustov to contribute to Commons harms them. Perhaps you can expand on that point a bit. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you see a potential problem with all of the misleading backlinks he was placing to his Upstream fitness category on other Wikipedia projects? I gave you six diffs on six different Wikipedias; if you don't see a problem with those, then I'm not going to waste my time collecting the dozens more like them. How about the placement of his pictures on loosely-related non-English articles with English-language captions?

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a bit short; this guy has been poking at me on enwiki (despite his block) for months. 'Vandalism' and 'sockpuppet' aren't terms used lightly on enwiki; I presume that the same is true here. It feels like Shustov is being given a free pass on his history — I'm fine with assuming good faith, but I'm not willing to be stupid about it. When he does the same things on Commons as he was doing on enwiki, he ought to know where it's headed by now. In a previous ride on the merry-go-round, I was a "he-goat" in the "kitchen-garden", requiring Wikipedia's "animal control" (post, block-evading crosspost, crosspost, crosspost). Now on Commons, apparently I'm a "Wiki-termite", infesting articles. Plus, he's smearing a number of other editors (DMacks, Mokele, Zach425, and Glane23 are named) from enwiki, who probably have no idea that he's doing it and who have no opportunity to answer the charges. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled and saddened by the attacks upon you. However, in the past there has been little support on Commons for taking action based on the behavior of users on other projects. I don't particularly agree with that view, but I am constrained by it. The category has been renamed. I think that the files in the category may be renamed to be more meaningful and helpful in accordance with Commons:File naming. If that were done, the self-promotion issue would be gone, I think. I've warned Shustov against incivility and I explicitly warn against personal attacks, also, just in case that isn't clear. Plagiarism is taken seriously on Commons. Since Shustov understands this policy, a violation is likely to result in an indefinite block. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Walter Siegmund: do you really think TenOfAllTrades is an innocent victim? If you want to know the truth, look into my Wikipedia account Discussion records which were removed by TenOfAllTrades after he had been caught by me on lying there. The very last event preceding my indefinite block by TenOfAllTrades may be found in Looks like Hypocrisy. Shustov (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response, above. The event that you discuss on w:en:Talk:Earthquake_engineering occurred in July on English Wikipedia and we can't help you with that. Also, please confine your posts on this and related issues to this page. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wsiegmund — yes, since the category was renamed, an additional rename of the images to something more appropriate would probably alleviate my concerns about self-promotion. (At least, as long as Shustov doesn't go back to adding the term "Upstream fitness" to Wikipedia articles, and as long as he isn't adding external links to his exercise program anywhere — but those are bridges to be crossed should we come to them.) On a related note, I'd appreciate it if you – or another Commons admin – could do something about Shustov's ongoing 'calls to action' directed at me. The massive crossposting (here, here, just down below, and even in my userspace) is decidedly inappropriate and bordering on the disruptive. I don't particularly want to engage with Shustov's claims further, but if you have any questions about his statement immediately above I'd be glad to clear up any misconceptions. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I will archive other discussions and link to this one and delete the post in your userspace in response to your request. I have asked him to confine his posts on this topic to this page (see above). Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here has been archived. Shustov has been warned against spamming his own images crosswiki.[28][29] His allegations of misbehavior of TenOfAllTrades describe the latter's attempts to remove Shustov's image spam (also see User:TenOfAllTrades/rebuttal). Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

File renaming and crosswiki image spamming

Walter Siegmund: I agree with all your responses. The response by TenOfAllTrades of 17:04, 25 November 2009 is also encouraging. If the renamed Category:Fitness training for seniors alleviates his concerns about my alleged self-promotion, why shouldn’t he revisit all mentioned above Wikipedia articles and reattach the previously removed images? Let us stop pointing fingers. Shustov (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. File names should be meaningful, helpful and correct (Commons:File naming). File names selected according to these guidelines make it more likely that the files will be used in Wikipedia articles. To change the name of a file, please use {{Rename}} (Commons:File renaming). As uploader, you don't even need to give a reason. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What will happen with the Wikipedia articles where those images are still alive after the names are changed? Shustov (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, all 12 existing files in Category:Fitness training for seniors have no conflict with Commons:File naming guidelines. Why should I rename them? Why, e.g., the file name File:Taoist Tai Chi class.jpg is better than [[:]]? Shustov (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would look here Commons:File renaming since we are discussing a rename. But to your question. Yes! When a file is renamed the articles using the images will be changed also. So images will still be visible if they are renamed. --MGA73 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you MGA73. What about my next question, let's call it "Why should I"? Shustov (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Taoist Tai Chi class.jpg is more meaningful and helpful to the average editor than UPSTREAM FITNESS-4.jpg. You may welcome the opportunity to put an end to accusations of self-promotion by replacing "UPSTREAM FITNESS" with a more meaningful and helpful term of your own choosing, e.g., "One-arm handstand.jpg".[30] Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the names File:Fitness_master_class.jpg, File:Fitness_master_class-1.jpg, File:Fitness_master_class-2.jpg and so on? And how shall I use this link [31]? Shustov (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Shustov: Thanks for providing images and thus making them accesible for projects who may want to use them. Spamming your own images crosswiki is however not acceptable, adding images like you did here will be reverted (I already reverted that one) - let the editors who actually write at that project decide which image they would like to illustrate these articles (they will probably add a caption in the correct language as well). I strongly suggest you trace your steps throughout the wikimedia-projects (you may use this link) and remove such additions yourself, if somebody else have to clean up after your imagespamming you may risk real "global blacklisting".

This is not really a Commons-problem however, the images are within scope and properly licensed, so it is not likely that any administrative action will be taken at this project. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Finn Rindahl:

1. Do I, finally, need to take care of renaming files in Category:Fitness training for seniors or not?

2. The images provided by me were really placed into some Wikipedia articles on the topics where, I believed, my professional expertise was adequate to make a sound editorial judgment. However, it was not, as you said, "spamming" because those images promoted no products, service, theories, names of persons or businesses. Due to this, I should be treated as a regular editor without any discrimination for my contribution to Wikimedia Commons. Let the experts on any particular topic decide what image is good for them and what is not. Otherwise, it would look like a vandalism: just the matter we are discussing now. Shustov (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To the first, it would be most convenient, and the strongest demonstration of your goodwill, if you were to request the renaming yourself.

To the second, it may be best to review your past editorial judgements. (While you appear to be the sole personal promoter of your Upstream Fitness exercise program ([32]), my understanding is that your professional engineering expertise has little bearing on the images that you have been posting.) Three days ago you were edit warring to include a low-resolution image with dubious relevance and a Russian-language caption in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia: [33]. (Note the cyrillic caption in the latin-scripted article.) Your revert was almost immediately undone by a local editor at azwiki: [34]. The people expressing concerns about these sorts of edits are in no way related to me, and have almost certainly never heard of either one of us. Consider, just for a moment, that there may be something to their advice — there's no conspiracy or secret blacklist.

As an aside, can you please stop implying that I'm a vandal, or that any of my edits were vandalism? That's just out of bounds for civil conversation on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades:

1. I will rename all those files by myself.

2. I will revisit my past editorial experience. There were multiple imperfections on my part, I know. Strictly speaking, I wish we both were better.

3. You are right: my engineering and fitness (let’s avoid the term "upstream fitness", just in case) experiences are not closely related. However I know something of value in both areas. Nevertheless, I always open to other people opinions and always treat them friendly if those opinions are expressed in a nice, intelligent manner.

4. It is the right moment to stop calling names and pinning up labels. Let’s pardon each other: it’s the Turkey time! Shustov (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Shustov (talk · contribs) has not only failed to do as Finn Rindahl asked above, on 2009-11-27 and 2009-11-28, he restored links to his images that had removed by TenOfAllTrades.[35] His requested rename ofto File:Fitness_master_class.jpg is only partially responsive since it is not very meaningful or helpful.[36] His latest edit to this page (which I rolled back) is an oblique attack on TenOfAllTrades, which he was warned against.[37] His IP signature, if not a system glitch, is odd. As Finn Rindahl points out above, the main problem is not his behavior on Commons, but spamming his own images crosswiki. However, he is using his long post above under the heading "Shustov v. TenOfAllTrades" to attempt to justify the restoration of inks to his images on other projects. Consequently, that discussion has been archived. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Uwe kils

User:Uwe kils is an experienced editor here and on the English Wikipedia (where he is known as en:User:kils), but of late has been making strange edits, changing some of the nude pictures to say there is a $500,000 royalty for using them. Because when established editors go on vandalism sprees they a) already know our rules and b) they have either gone off the deep end or their account is hacked, I issued a level 4 warning right away. He responded by posting legal threats on his talk page and mine, and has continued the vandalism spree. Because the account is probably compromised, I think an immediate long term block is in order. -Nard the Bard 11:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There were related IP-edits that are no less strange and a strange comment on my talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've send an email to the real Uwe Kils. --Túrelio (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for three days to prevent further vandalism/legal threats. --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh lordy[38]. -Nard the Bard 14:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has also been blocked on :en. So far, I didn't get any reply to my personal email to him. --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the account isn't hacked and he's got a legitimate gripe... It sounds legitimate except I don't see how it's possible to go from oceanography to random photos of genitalia, and I would certainly expect an editor with several featured photos to understand the licensing and image deletion process... -Nard the Bard 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this user is a professor, if I understood his userpage on :en right. Unlikely he would expose himself (meaning the recent edits) in such a manner. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

After I had asked the user twice per email (addresses from his userpage, here and on :en) for clarification and about whether his user account on Commons might have been hacked (thereby explaining his strange edits), I never got an email reply, but a comment on User talk:Túrelio#professor uwe kils that is rather similar to his earlier edits elsewhere, not quite what I would have expected from a marine biology professor. As I have done what I could do to prevent damage from his user account and the person behind it, I will withdraw myself from this "case" - though I still don't understand what's going on here. --Túrelio (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ill block him indefinite as a possible compromised account of an identifiable person. The account was inactive on Commons since 28 November 2006 and suddenly came back with some strange edits and citing a "Uhse Elite University". We are both from Germany, Turelio, and we know that every such university or initiative would have hit the news in germany. The only google hits go to http://www.uhse-elite-university.com/ and Uwe Kills compromised account on Wikipedia and Commons. The recent edits writing we do have the copyright for the 6 high resolution macro images, the films and receipts of the models, 500 000 dollars a piece - with beautiful, high resolution photographs beate uhse and jimbo whales earned a fortune. are pure nonsense as same as the article on en.wp. Reading his edits on en.wikipedia there might be also the possibility that the account is not compromised but upset by Wikipedia allowing to upload images of and write about sexual content and from that upset he now started to vandalize.

Additional is a native german speaker, so it would not cause him any trouble to ask in German too. --Martin H. (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, see my deletion log. --Martin H. (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Addition: I found that the account was inactive on de.wp as well where he is an former admin, but his rights where revoked according to http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003941.html. This might underline the posibillity of a come back to disturb projects for hosting sexual content. --Martin H. (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Special:DeletedContributions/Uwe_kils also shows that they seem to be disliking the indecent images hosted here (Some have since been deleted). Good call though Martin! Bidgee (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of a crucial response in the archived discussion of alleged vandalism

Now, let’s go back to the sheep

Walter Siegmund, Finn Rindahl and TenOfAllTrades: Stop pinching Shustov for a while, please, and answer the only question of global importance:

"May Wikimedia Commons image contributor include his/her images into the relevant Wikipedia pages or such practice is prohibited?" Shustov (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Shustov's question has been answered above.[53] Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

An image that says a bad word

I was looking around on clipart on Wikimedia Commons and I found an image that says "Fuck your War". I wish to have this image deleted. Nascarfans (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Nascarfans

You did not provide any link so it is impossible to give you a proper reply, but I would like to remind you that Commons is not censored, so it is probable that the argument you give is not a ground solid enough for a file deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the related RFD. --Túrelio (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Arandyp

This user is a logged in vandal from nl.wikipedia, [54]. He has created an account here and has posted two pictures of someone, which were used for cyberbullying. Thank you for your attention, Taketa (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But who are the people shown in File:Rickzusje.jpg? Could this image be useful, despite the intented misuse by the uploader? Or is it a copyvio (I couldn't find it on Google/TinEye)? --Túrelio (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The person shown on the pictures is probably this person [55] and his sister (rickzusje). The page on nl.wiki was about them being in the extreme pornindustry. I do not know about licence but the image can be found at [56] and [57]. I do not expect this image to be useful since it is a picture of unknown people. Taketa (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's finally a copyvio. Thanks for the feedback. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sesionesconaf

Belgrano blocked him before becouse he was uploading unfree files after warnings, and keeps uploading copyright violations after the end of the first block. Sesionesconaf did it again. Also, I think it's a single-purpose account, here, and in Spanish Wikipedia. Thx, ·×α£đ·^es 22:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, Belgrano blocked him again for 1 month. –Tryphon^☂ 09:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Wikifreund

User "Wikifreund" removed the deletion tag from this image [58] without permission. This user is no admin and the deletion discussion is still in process. Such actions are widely known as "Vadalism" (as far as I know from en:wikipedia). Frodian 10:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC) ">☂]] 10:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/64.56.44.3

Special:Contributions/64.56.44.3 added a lot of gibberish text to several file and file talk pages. I deleated several of his pages and cleaned up his other "contributions", but he might deserve a block. --Jarekt (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done, no edits since mid-November. I'll block if there is any more vandalism. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

@Juliancolton, his most recent edits have been deleted and therefore aren't directly shown in his contributions list. --Túrelio (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So I see.  Done then, sorry about my slowness... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the same person is using Special:Contributions/64.26.116.204 account as well. Blocked it too. --Jarekt (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ill block the range till 2010, account creation allowed. --Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

21wine

"User:21wine"; a "new user", this account's contributions start 2009.12.09

in the time since then, this user has done nothing except to spam deletion noms of "dirty pictures"

all with the same, invalid rationale ("no penis" on the one's i've checked)

no other reasons given; no regard for quality, content, relevance, use, rights, etc.

user has not properly contacted uploaders on their talkpages, for each image. the one i checked, had 3x notices the same nom & no messages at all for several other noms.

user has also made a mess of filepages with multiple deletion nom templates per page.

the user's editing is disruptive, at least bordering on vandalism, & it is wasting the time of other users, dealing with this.

i'm extremely tired & fed up with following up on all the noms, could somebody please shut this guy down & tidy up the mess?

Lx 121 (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal message "No freedom of panorama in Russia" from 85.141.130.121

A lot of photos of Russia are under attack (bot?) from IP 85.141.130.121.

This IP removes information about license and adds the line
{{copyvio|No freedom of panorama in Russia}} . See, e.g. Search by No+freedom+of+panorama+in+Russia.

Could you revert all these edits (about 100) automatically?

Thank you. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you want, replace the speedy deletions by standard deletion requests? --Eusebius (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure, that there are any reasons to delete these photo.

I want to revert these edits, because anonymous-IP deleted the information about license. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason given by the IP is valid. There is indeed no FOP in Russia, and pictures of sculptures and buildings are ok only if the works themselves are PD or if we get an OTRS authorization from the copyright holder. The deletion requests are therefore not absurd (most of these works would not survive a deletion request, I guess), but if licensing info was deleted I'll have a look at it (although the licenses are probably wrong). It will be fully manual, though, so it will be slow. --Eusebius (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid many of them have already been speedily deleted. One may regret the "speedy" part but I think the pics were doomed anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This affair leaves some questions open

• why does speedy work while numerous XFDs either hang on for years or are closed as "no consensus"?

Because some cases are easier than others. --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• is it possible to review recent downloads before they are reused by 'pedias here and there? Shouldn't Commons recruit more admins or call it reviewers?

Let's say we do our possible, but there are too many uploads. We already have quite a number of admins, but 1) it isn't the only admin work we have to do, 2) only a little portion of the admins are active on a given period, 3) this part of the job is often neither easy nor pleasant 4) this part of the job often require specific knowledge in intellectual property... --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• if users hide behind an IP to request deletion... something's wrong. NVO (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see why. --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ack. Such images should not be speedy deleted, but on a regular DR. I know that the result will be probably the same, but there are simply too many of such images in various wikipedias. Since the CommonsDelinker doesn't fully work, I must adjust manually in German wikipedia after deletion. Also: In Germany there is FOP, and for that reason it is in DE-WP allowed to upload also russian sculpture or building photographs under free license. For that, I need some authomatic tool for a simplified transfer in case of a deletion on commons (i.e., something like a reverse of CommonsHelper, if you know what I mean). --S^[1] 20:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has been a request for a while that we have a CommonsHelper-like bot able to warn the reusers of a file on the other projects that the file is being tagged or nominated for deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

@S1, ähemm, did I understand your statement correctly? Because we have a broader FOP law in Germany, :de allows images taken in Russia of copyrighted sculptures by russian sculptors? As to my knowledge, what counts is the (FOP law at the) place/country where the image was taken, at least on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There were some requests according that problem on DE. Afaik images of russian copyright-protected buildings are allowed in DE. See also this topic. --S^[1] 11:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Somewhat astonished. However, here on Commons images have to be free in the original country and in the US. I remember that some time ago a lot of photos from recent buildings (outside-view) in Italy were removed from Commons with the rationale "no FOP in Italy", despite the fact that US FOP-law does cover buildings. If that deletion holds water, it should be the same with photos from Russia that would require FOP. Moving deletion-threatened images to :de might be a solution, if that's really considered to be legal. --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't moving threatened images to a "safe habour", if available, always be our default choice? especially in-use images? Lx 121 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds right in general, but what's a safe harbour? I don't know much about Russia, but if it was France instead (which doesn't have FOP either), the copyright holder could sue a foreign editor for copyvio as soon as the website is visible from France. That doesn't leave much space for a safe harbour, if we omit the one in which lie deleted images. On a more pragmatic point of view, I don't think it is reasonable to expect from a Commons admin to know all the import procedures, fair use policies and so on about the sister projects, or even to be able to fully understand them. --Eusebius (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If german law really really says "We do not care if others have FOP - we have - and therefore it is ok to have the photos here, why do we not move the servers to Germany? That way we sould not have problems with FOP. But I have hard to believe that de-wiki can have high res images of the Eiffel Tower etc. without any risk. --MGA73 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Law is one thing, what we do on Commons is another. We are way more strict than we gotta be. Rocket000 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Кавалакадский Паук

This user (a puppet of a ruwiki vandal) uploaded a fake «barnstar» with an obscene picture and uses it for vandalism («rewarding» users with it: [59]). Please block him and delete the file. --Cvz1-ru (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Deleted and user blocked. Bidgee (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

vandalism by Pstripes2010

see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ALang-CP&action=historysubmit&diff=34504126&oldid=32785097, --Zaccarias (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! For users that have only or or two bad edits, we usually just leave them a warning note on their talk page. This noticeboard is geared more for users who are vandalizing much more. I've left a note on User talk:Pstripes2010. But thanks for bringing this to our attention. :-) Killiondude (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

unexplained removal of deletion request template

User talk:Ebaran: Unexplained removal of deletion request template on File:Dehiwala zoo logo.jpg. Snowmanradio (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned Ebaran (talk · contribs). Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

JarektBot (talk · contribs)

Somebody needs to stop this bot really really quick.

Reestablishes a deleted cat system and that without using autamtic cateogrization by the template (Bundesarchiv).

The Bundesarchiv files were categorized by year by a tempalte. These categories were switched of. It can't be that one user now adds these categories to 200.000 files manually again, since it is clear that these categories are not meant to be permanent. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. I already reverted him on Template:BArch-License recently. Recreating a temporary category system using templates is one thing, establishing it in fixed form is vandalism and a slap in the face for all people who worked in categorizing the images by date. So blocked temporary, looking forward for opinions. --Martin H. (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There were several threads on COM:VP where several users agreed that the template based categories should be restored. Thus, I don't quite understand your revert nor the advantage of the "manual" categories the bot is adding, especially as it's doing it to files I already categorized manually by year. -- User:Docu at 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two things here: Automatic categorization by template and categorization of source by year. Automatic categorization turned out to be a bad idea so I rather never use that again. Categorization by year might be useful with historic images. People are working on that (example). A quick query reveals that of the 82302 images, 23554 appear to be in a year category. Intersecting source (Bundesarchiv) and topic (a year in this case) should only be done as a temporary thing to sort out the images to the relevant year categories. Edits like this one are not very helpful in that context. Multichill (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This must be a first time that categorizing images is considered a vandalism and gets user blocked. My edits were proposed at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009Nov#Bundesarchiv_photo_categories and I thought the matter was settled - it is OK to add but without "template hacks". The bottom line is that, like it or not, users (including me) find by year categories useful for finding images. If you do not like to use them than do not touch them but do not destroy it for other that relay on them. Bundesarchiv collection is much harder to browse and further categorize since the last category structure was dismantled and frequent user requests to bring it back (sometimes irritating and not very polite) show it. Other big collections (like Fotothek) also mostly have only basic categories instead of multiple orthogonal categories recomented. If you do not allow willing users to help with the categorization tasks (especially of large collections) you might have to be doing all the categorization by yourselves, which is usually an impossible task for anybody. Also next time someone wants to stop an AWB bot all you have to do is to leave a message on it's talk page, as explained on User talk:JarektBot there is no need to block it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To edit 200.000 files to introduce a parallel category system makes the whole even worse. If you want that than make a template hack. While I have to say that I disapprove of making these categories permanent. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Combining year and image source in one category is a bad idea. Combinations of topic and year are very often used on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At least make them hidden. Rocket000 (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we all agree that year x topic categories are useful? If so, I can have a shot at some semi-automatic categorization of these images. Multichill (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Multichill, please give it a shot. --Jarekt (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If they are hidden, they shouldn't be a problem indeed. It wouldn't be the only image source category that can be browsed by year.
If duplication bothers people, one could disable Category:Images from the German Federal Archive instead. -- User:Docu at 15:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• btw: Such edits as in http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Raimund_Liebhaber&diff=next&oldid=32076484 (without reverting the former categorisation) make no sense. 78.55.163.121 13:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Long time no see. Adding DEFAULTSORT will make sense at the moment someone will add a category with HotCat in future. Unlikely too happen as the categorization of this category looks fine for the moment, but its not an senseless edit. But agree, while adding the DEFAULTSORT he could have removed the redundant sort keys. --Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Historiographer

Historiographer (talk · contribs) He likes to delete information on several file pages (e.g. [60], [61], [62], [63]). He also takes part on an Edit War ([64]) which has already been reported as such ([65], new content below) and without taking part on the still ongoing discussion. About all that I messaged him on his discussion page ([66] / [67]), but as you can see on the later/earlier history versions of the file pages he seems to ignore my warning.

By looking on his contributions ([68]) his is also involved in several Edit Wars despite an ongoing discussion on his discussion page about his edits ([69]). Reading all his statements and taking edits like this in concideration there is a justified suspicion that he is a "man on mission" trying to revise information in his national (korean) opinion. He was once reported for that by User:Loreleil with this result, but also this seems to be ignored by him ([[70]]).

He also gives other user support on enquiry ([71]) even this led to nonsense edits like this one.

Can't we give him a "holiday" of 2 weeks so he can reconcider how to behave and how to make edits here on Commons? Greetings --Valentim (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd warn both parties. Please stop editing and concentrate in discussions. If I found counterproductive edit warring any longer, I will protect every file pages. Regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not be mistaken for User:Historiograf. --Túrelio (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Apsomol

Apsomol (talk · contribs) Uploaded a new version of File:Wisent.jpg, which is used on de-wiki's main page today. That new version obviously is not appropriate for a main page ;) In my eyes the account was just created for that vandalism, see also his question of how long he has to wait for re-upload. Please do something about it. Thanks in advance! XenonX3 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked by PeterSymonds. Tiptoety ^talk 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Michaeldsuarez.

A vandal and troll who's impersonating me (notice the period at the end of his username). See Special:Contributions/Michaeldsuarez. for his disruptive edits. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. The userpage alone was enough proof that they're not here to help Commons. I also deleted their userpage. Killiondude (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's crosswiki, so I've requested the account to be globally locked. It's done now. — Dferg (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pandora

Hi. I don't usually edit the pages, I just use wikipedia for information, so I'm not sure what to do. On the page on Pandora (the greek myth),someone has deleted a line of text and written obscenties in it's place. I'm not sure who wrote that, or who wrote the original sentance, but I think something can be done to restore the original text, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.133.89 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Already Fixed. Btw, I'd recommand you to write such messages rather on Wikipedia's admin noticeboard than here. In case you haven't yet noticed, this is a totally different page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Doritosmakesmehyper

Upload of copyrighted material, pretend to be his own, on File:Jchumz.JPG you can see that it is scanned, multiple copyrightviolations in past, see his discussion page --Jodo (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, added some articles from en:Category:Mauritian athletes to my watchlist. --Martin H. (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

I think these edits from IP 66.198.41.140 nominating a page for deletion are an attempt at disruption. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Lupo 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:PhoebeMan

Too many copyright violations, She/he has advertisiments. Thanks!!! Esteban (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done — the user got blocked for 3 days by Bidgee (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). Thanks for reporting, Ezarate. Regards, — Dferg (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

mass elimination of categories without discussion

this admin User:High Contrast is unilaterally going around elimination entire sections of categorization, without any discussion. this is inappropriate behavoir & needs to stop. i have attempted contacting him, & he has not provided any response to now, even tho he is currently active &^ continuing his unilateral mass-deletions Lx 121 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts and truth:
i have attempted contacting him, & he has not provided any response Lx 121 contacted me at 19:12, 7 March 2010; I went offline at 17:25, 7 March 2010 (check here, please). Lx 121 did not say the truth by stating that I was continuing "mass-deletions" (what is not true either) without reacting on his "comment" that you can read here.
Category deletion: I have closed this deletion request with the result of deleting the discussed category and the parent category: Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted - as it was requested by User:Rocket000. As a result I deleted both and the other similar categories found in Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted. It is unnecessary to open new deletion discussions for a problem that was solved for the same case in another DR. Besides of that, it is quite obvious that these categories do not meet the project scope and COM:CAT.
Vandalism: a weak accusation that is not based on true events. The real vandalism is purchased by Lx 121 himself as he recreated the deleted categories. Moreover Lx121 threatens me with an "edit war" [72]. --High Contrast (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cropbot

Cropbot (talk · contribs) Please, don't allow this bot to continue anymore without nonstop watching by the bot-owner . He is overwriting images with "cropped" versions" and in that way, he destroys to much of them while cropping. Examples:

1. Images of the 2MASS-atlas (catalogue). they are usually needed with the text environment and maybe also without. Cropped versions shoudt be uploaded separately. See File:Maf2atlas.jpg, File:Maf1atlas.jpg
2. Images with additional information by text near to the border: File:Lartigue Monorail old 001.jpg. Cropping erases the text and the information.
3. Cropping, which is simply not nescessary: File:Erpel Stadtgarten Freiburg 01.jpg there is no reason for cropping, exept the use shows otherwise.

About 10% of the croppings are with an error and about additional 5% are not nescessary. Therefore, this bot needs to run more carefully.

Greetings from Antonsusi (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cropbot is operated by users. See User:Cropbot#What_if_Cropbot_causes_problems.3F. --Martin H. (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's take File:Lartigue Monorail old 001.jpg as example: the text in the image belongs definitely not to the original image, it's a computer font. Because of that Erik Baas marked it with {{Remove caption}}. Finavon has removed the text in the image and completed the information template. What you identify as vandalism is for me good work. Greetings,--Luxo 22:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is if the crops shouldn't be uploaded under new names or over the uncropped versions. Photographers might not be happy if their images get replaced by cropped versions in non-standard sizes (e.g. File:Erpel Stadtgarten Freiburg 01.jpg). -- User:Docu at 13:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In case they aren't happy, they can easily revert to the old version. Of course, when uploading a crop over the original image, one should leave a note on the original uploaders talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Docu: but then you have the same problem if a user crop a image on his own PC and uploads it over a uncropped version. It's a wiki, if you don't like that we must take the right to reupload away for users. With cropbot you have the possibility to upload under a new name, every operator decides himself if he create a new file or not.--Luxo 17:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Special:Contributions/Quadriplegia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egmontaz (talk • contribs)

 Done: blocked for a week. --High Contrast (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sjsj

Special:Contributions/Sjsj – sockpuppet of User:Michaeldsuarez. (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/Vandalism_4#User:Michaeldsuarez. for reference). This vandal is only here to troll User:Michaeldsuarez (aka me). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done: User blocked. Bidgee (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:tiptoety

User:tiptoety has been involved in major impedment of aquiring information about permission that was granted by Stanley J. Anderson. There has been two incident where he has been deleting relevant comments ( or questions in this case) on the OTRS/Noticeboard. The comment was mistaken for block evasion and I was wrongfully blocked for it. I have the evidence to back this up if it should be needed. JTS 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if it was a mistake, as you say, then it isn't vandalism on Tiptoety's part. Have your comments been restored now? What actions are still required? What kind of resolution are you hoping for? –Tryphon^☂ 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It was no mistake it was delibrately done not one not twice,but three times. He should be I would like someone to keep an eye over the OTRS NOTICEBOARD edit history and report anything out of the ordinay, and if nessessary issue warnings or blocks. JTS 21:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Everything is ok. Tiptoety removed an private email, thats common practice. If someone writes you an email you can not simply copy it to an public board, so thanks to Tiptoety who keeped the personal information hidden to protect privacy. The OTRS is not the place to copy&paste emails, thats not how otrs works. By coincident exactly this pice of simple information was written to you directly above the email you pasted to the board. Tiptoety did two edits to the OTRSN here, one removing the email, one explaining the case, some information I fully support, the abuse comes from somewhere else here. --Martin H. (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment The above comments made by 4.248.xx.xx but signed as JTS is a blocked Wikipedia Commons user due the lack of understanding on copyright and fair use but also for socking. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

please keep you comments to what is relevent. Besides Bidgee you miskaking this for something unrelated to commons. 4.248.60.33 10:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment is relevant regrading this section and to Commons, you're a blocked editor and by posting under IPs isn't going to get you anywhere. Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not considering these block are independent of one other, and what I'm doing is getting me somewhere despite your belief. 4.248.57.125 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for pretty much doing the same thing in both places. You were initially blocked at Wikipedia then came here and got blocked here, too. You've also gone back to Wikipedia and continued your misbehavior over there since then. Discussion of your actions at both sites is relevant.

You've been warned by numerous editors and admins to stop your IP evasion. Several have told you that your continued inappropriate use of Commons and Wikipedia makes it unlikely you will ever be considered for an unblock. If you ever wish to contribute constructively, it would be best for you to go away for a very long time and try to come back when you have learned to abide by Wikimedia/Wikipedia policies and rules. bmpowell (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC

You guys are seriously impeading my requests for informaion about a permission e-mail that was sent by Stanley J. Anderson. Your guys should be the ones to stop your behaviors. I'm trying to help me get unblocked not the other way arround.17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns, SchoolcraftT, you should address them via e-mail as you are a blocked user. You should not be using IP addresses to evade blocks.

Frankly, if I were an OTRS admin I would reject any "permissions" provided related to those e-mails as likely fraudulent. Considering your history with falsely tagging information and intentionally providing misleading permissions, along with your continued willingness to ignore policies, I wouldn't put it past you to simply send an e-mail from another personal account of your own and claim it belongs to Stanley Anderson. 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They did belong to Dr Anderson. 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ive tried that but no one has answered any of em or my e-mail function has been blocked as well

You guy need to stop making me what I'm not. The permission were not misleading, maybe in the wording of em but nothing else. In fact one was sent by Stanley J. Anderson about a week ago today, and I still have it as it was carbon copied to me and I forward it to permission-en that same day. If you guys want proof give me your e-mail addresses. 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They are written permissions. If the wording of the permission was misleading, then the whole thing was misleading. bmpowell (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

not entirely true 19:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So it is partly true then? Even if there is the slightest misleading permissions (in which Bmpowell is trying to tell you) can be refused and because of your Wikipedia/Commons history you can't be trusted, even posting under IP's (to block evade) enforces this. Bidgee (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this already over at User talk:SchoolcraftT. Near the end of the "Blocked" section, SchoolcraftT admits that he "fibed" about the image permissions. He's lied in the past. How do we know that he is telling the truth now?

The images in question are all fairly easily replaceable with new photos of the same locations. It seems like it would be a lot more straightforward just to get new photographs that wouldn't be encumbered by these copyright questions. bmpowell (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

YOu gy should not take prior histor int a comversation that dosen't even pertain to the my block. If OTRS refuses Dr Anderson's permission because of prior history you both will be hearing form him, and it may not be pretty. 08:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're trying to threaten us, SchoolcraftT. You may think that your prior actions should have no bearing on whether you and others supposedly connected to you can be trusted now, but I doubt anyone else would agree with that assessment. Perhaps you should read about en:The Boy Who Cried Wolf. bmpowell (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think under the conditions place on Wikimedia by this comment from SchoolcraftT we would best to deny further contact and revert on site. Gnangarra 13:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. As Bmpowell already said. Editing here is a privilege, not a right. --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

suspect text

Hi, I requested: File:Jews and I was browsing when I came accross the following (that text does not appear on the file itself, only in the list):

File:Hip.jpg 2007-06-30 18:25 en:User:Daoui | Daoui 800×516×8 (67544 bytes) cayabyab,hip-hopper,jew,bastard,asshole,shithead,shitface,assface,dickshit, ... 330×310 (9,560 bytes) - 23:50, 27 November 2009

thanks, --Hope&Act3! (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Text is in File:Hip.jpg description and was transfered with file from English Wikipedia as log. Removed --Justass (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Soapstone and Special:Contributions/24.238.13.31

Please have a look at those two - probably the same?

Some destructive edits there, while making it look like "reverts" through misleading edit comments etc.

• empty cat. Pederasty
• empty/destroy page Pederasty
• Probably more on account of those two?! ...

Thanks! Pudding4brains (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible but hard to tell, the account may have forgot to login but have blocked the IP for a day and the account for a week. Bidgee (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikihisha

Suspicious cross-wiki sock puppet of ja:LTA:MIKI. Yassie (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I already blocked him for doing nothing but vandalism, thanks for having an eye on this. Besides that that on ja.wp is a checkuser case and that ja:LTA:MIKI#同一ユーザーと思われるIP lists some related IPs I really dont understand anything on that page, google translation is useless for Japanese. --Martin H. (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Finavon

Finavon (talk · contribs): Could an admin check please, if the user's edits are useful or not. Thanks. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 21:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't see any irregularitys.--Luxo 20:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Domaleixo (talk · contribs)

Please, can someone do something about this situation? It's the 4rt time the copyvios are uploaded, the user has already insulted me and another user and is now removing the copyvio tag from the files.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the uploader is still blocked since 23rd of March. --Túrelio (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Kustodiev

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kustodijew2.jpg

Someone has altered the jpeg title it should read Kustodieve.jpg

This is a form of racism or racial slur would you kingly edit the title and or the jpg

Thanks

M

This has nothing to do with "racism or racial slur". The transliteration of cyrillic names into other languages often yields into different results, as a look to the interwikis on en:Boris Kustodiev easily shows. --Túrelio (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I've moved the image to File:Kustodiev The Bolshevik.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Crosswiki vandal

User:Mortimer Freen, crosswiki "pelican shit" vandal, please block. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

 Done, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And locked too. — Dferg (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User Passion Saturday

This user: Registration date: 11:45, 31 March 2010. See the 10 contibutions. I think this is done on purpose and may be that more images and categories will follow. Wouter (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacked, warned and watched. Thanks for reporting it. –Tryphon^☂ 13:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Faggooo

[73] And look at his user page. I am not the one he is talking about, though. NorwegianMarcus 07:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done - The user intimidated a person with fullname, userpage deleted. The file uploaded has half a dozen versions all very different but clearly the same person, presumably schoolphotos. File deleted for out of scope/cyberbullying.
The file seemed to be in use on no.wikipedia.org but that's a coincedence, the page there was not edited for a long time, the file here recently uploaded. –Krinkle^talk 08:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

User:赫鲁小娃

Keep uploading non-free pictures from fansite. Please take action. Thanks.--Wcam (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 2 weeks. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

mega vandalism

a mega vandalism by 84.160.199.201 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. he insert a text-code like a wiki-user-messege, whith link to a german-wikipedia page. (sorry of my English). ישראל קרול (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to understand the background, I not found it, not a real problem, reverted and forget about him. He tried to make a joke and add a link to that 'goatse' image. --Martin H. (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Spurt spurt

Spurt spurt (talk · contribs) Vandalising images - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Warned, will keep an eye --Justass (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Russia_edcp_location_map.svg

Only one try to remove the disputed area of the Kuril Islands. So no Vandalism yet, but could somebody watch this? I am not very often on commons... thanks Uwe Dedering (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've commented and added the page to my watch list. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So, after your comment now a perfectly neutral map is disputed. What now? Uwe Dedering (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/1989 Rosie

Already blocked in DE und EN Wikipedia. Uploaded a nearly childporn pic today, so I see no good faith in this user. XenonX3 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - indef blocked, CU might be appropriate. Thanks for the info. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we have crosswiki-CU? XenonX3 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Stewards on Meta (not actually cross wiki but anywhere there are not local CUs)? Quite possibly a local one will notice this as far as Commons is concerned. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The dates of block are cause of concern, so done. --Martin H. (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it I guess the account should be globally locked on Meta? (thanks Martin) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Account now globally locked. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:AsshoIe

Special:Contributions/AsshoIe: Insults users. -- Athenchen (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Indef'd and since the abuse was crosswiki, I've globally locked the account on meta. Thanks, — Dferg (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Racist user

User:ArséniureDeGallium has been racist here and is denying it on his talk page. Also note User:Dalejenkins and User:Bravedog (who are socks of each other on English Wikipedia) are using the term "nigga". Please indef block all 3. Thanks. Superjellyfish (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to explain what is racist about GaAs's remark, because frankly, I don't see it. –Tryphon^☂ 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Dalejenkins and Bravedog are already indef blocked. –Tryphon^☂ 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I do not see any problems either --Jarekt (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeez you guys are so un suspicious :) I've indef blocked the op given the track record on en wp. I imagine a CU check here will show something up. Likely a "good hand/bad hand" attempt. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Spotted another who posted on SWR's about them (SWR) being racist (had me stumped as I didn't even see one racist comment on the said talk page). Bidgee (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've nudged Martin for a CU - something going on for sure. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, may help out to get an understanding of the situation. I just fix my block reason (Using a different keypad, so don't mind my typos). Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For info - seems I was right :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So the guy submitted a report about himself being racist? Wow... -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The same case was answered by Killondude already in this removed comment - added and removed by other sockpuppets of Superjellyfish. Its stupid to start such accusations on no basis over and over again and to troll here with multiple accounts. Including the strange incident that Superjellyfish reports their moldy sockpuppets Dalejenkins and Bravedog as racists (per mattbuck above). So GEORGIE, stop trolling here, it does not help the project. If you have serious concerns - not such nonsense but a real concern - you may report it, but dont cry wolf here, insult other users or disrupt the project. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder: should I make any comment about that here? Or should I pretend I didn't hear about this section? (sorry my english is not good enough to discuss clearly such things, and it may be part of the problem).
• About my message on the DR: I would have written exactly the same thing would this man have been blue or green or pink with green dots. In in fact I didn't really noticed he was a black man (I mean: I saw it of course, but it was not an information of any importance at this moment) before all these messages on my talk page.
• If there is a real need for admins to do sthing, could they ensure that my talk page is not polluted with such nonsense?
• If it is possible that my comment may be understood as some form of racism (I don't think it is the case), I won't make a point if you prefer to delete it (but I don't favour this, as it may be mis-interpreted as the fact I admit the racism, which is not the case).
• --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You dont need to comment, Im sorry that you are the target of such a troll here. And no, the comment that initally caused this was not racistic and cant be interpreted as rasistic in any way. I hope it not discurages you from editing here, remove those rubish added by the sockpuppets from your talk pages. --Martin H. (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are someone really helpfull. But having such things on your talk page is really a terrrrrrrrific experience. Thanks for having helped me. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 18:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are in no way obliged to keep the comments there, feel free to delete them. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't. There is nothing in all that what I wrote above for which I think I should feel shame. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just on a side note, [74]. Tiptoety ^talk 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Acad.jpg

Hey, User:SPanza has uploaded a copyvio over File:Acad.jpg. Can anyone delete the version with the copyvio? Thanks a lot! ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 09:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, — Dferg (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Arcadia.jpg

Hey, there is one more. Just the some as above. A copyrighted picture uploaded over the original. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 10:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you again. — Dferg (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sexual content

User:Adam Cuerden is vandalizing here --UAltmann (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And using swearwords in his edits here--UAltmann (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And insulting other people here. --UAltmann (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And the administrator User:Kameraad Pjotr now has protected the page thus perpetuating that vandalism. This is abuse of administrator's rights. See here. --UAltmann (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody??? --UAltmann (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the page has been unprotected, and a message left for Kameraad Pjotr. I really hope we can avoid creating any more drama here. Tiptoety ^talk 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Policies do not seem to matter on this project anymore. Admins are deleting images which should be kept according to COM:SCOPE with the blessing of Jimbo Wales, so don't be surprised when some people get the feeling that no rules matter anymore. –Tryphon^☂ 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised at all, but I can't believe that someone gets away with vandalism and insult. I do believe that this User:Adam Cuerden could need a major break. --UAltmann (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

When user:Stillwaterisng can accuse people of being paedophiles and child pornographers with impunity, I am no longer surprised that lessor misconduct goes unactioned. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I really think that this too much of arbitrariness to let someone get away with such severe violations of the rules here. The same rules must be applied equally to all users. --UAltmann (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the customs at Commons, but I believe that it is not okay to say "fuck you" (here) to a fellow user, as did User:Adam Cuerden. --Ziko (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what you want. He's gone. Problem solved. Also: he had admin buttons. No point blocking him. Find a beurocrat/steward to have the buttons removed. --Dschwen (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is clear what I want, so quit asking for what I want. --UAltmann (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Pardis Parker at Laugh Factory.jpg

Stop User:Non-Malicious User! -- 78.55.19.29 06:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --High Contrast (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Hassan al-Turabi.jpg

Has been vandalized by IPs. The page is blocked so I am unable to revert. -- Cymothoa exigua (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

+1, I left message at Bdk as well. -jkb- (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done deleted (was a CC-by-nc-sa-1.0 photo without any author mentioned), thanks @ll for notification and help --:bdk: 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File:USK18 neu2.svg

Could somebdoy please proetct this page. An anonym user insists on vandalizing the page. Mizunoryu (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - Herby's already blocked the user who did it, and they'll likely find something more fun to do. I'll put it on my watchlist and protect it if there's more vandalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:AngelKitty

Special:Contributions/AngelKitty — added several silly image notes to pictures. --Rosenzweig δ 22:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

84.167.144.209

84.167.144.209 (talk · contribs): Places antisemitic statements on pages. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Warned, page deleted -Justass (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have an eye on him. Sorry for not warning first, but these kinds of statements usually result in an immediate block on dewiki. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

File:PeopleAgainstWikipedia.png

Obviously vandal-only. Image is being used to vandalize pages on en.wp. Uploader (and two sockpuppets) have been blocked on en.wp. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (admin, en.wp)

HerbEA (talk · contribs) has already been indefinitely blocked on en-WP, I did the same on commons and deleted the file as out of scope (no educational value). axp_de^Hello! 12:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

English Family Names - on English American article

I noted that IP user 140.211.82.5 has repeatably made edits to the English American article. This user has been invited to a discussion on to what is now looking like repeated vandalism & asked to stop editing and removing referenced text. The history page is now full of 'edit' & 'undo' statements.. Please suggest what to do to bring this IP user to the discussion pages & get this 'dispute' resolved.--Spikey Wikey (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but  Not done the edits in question did not happen here at Commons. Please post at en:WP:ANI for Wikipedia instead. -Nard the Bard 00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Clark von Heller

Forgive me, this is my first time doing this at Commons, so I don't know proper procedure. Single edit-spam, but including e-mail address that will need to be stricken from the records- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Clark_von_Heller --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

parasite comment

good day to you all, here after a list of files with the following comment (I copied only one of them):

this way it is POV, who decides which one deserves to be shown as a country more, Kosovo, Palestine, TRNC, Abkhazia etc. 2008-10-25T13:36:13 ... 10,495×7,945 (309,630 bytes) - 23:43, 18 July 2009

File:Blank map europe no borders.svg
File:Europe rail electrification en.svg
File:Vilnius group.svg
File:Blank map of Turkey & Cyprus.svg
File:Hungary Slovakia Locator.png
File:Hungary and Slovakia in Europe.svg
File:Europe WaterPolo Regional leagues 102009 fr.png
File:Europe WaterPolo Regional leagues 102009 en.png
File:Carte Autriche-Slovaquie.png
File:Carte Allemagne-Slovaquie.png
File:Carte Slovaquie-République tchèque.png
File:Carte Hongrie-Slovaquie.png
File:Carte Pologne-Slovaquie.png
File:Carte Slovaquie-Ukraine.png
File:Carte Slovaquie-Europe.png
File:Slovakia Ukraine Locator.png
File:Poland Slovakia Locator.png
File:Carte Slovaquie-Vatican.png
File:Carte Biélorussie-Slovaquie.png
File:Carte Liechtenstein-Slovaquie.png
File:Waterpolo Euroleague numberclubs 20092010.png
File:Euroleague preliminary numberclubs 20092010en.png
File:Euroleague preliminary numberclubs 20092010fr.png
File:WaterPolo LENTrophy 2009-2010 participating clubs fr.png
File:WaterPolo LENTrophy 2009-2010 participating clubs en.png
File:WaterPolo LENTrophy 2009-2010 8thFinals fr.png
File:WaterPolo LENTrophy 2009-2010 8thFinals en.png
File:Eastern European Group UNSC years 2009.png
File:Funeral Kaczynski.svg
File:2008 Global Champions Tour map.PNG
File:2009 Global Champions Tour map.PNG
File:2010 Global Champions Tour map.PNG
File:UEFA European Football Championship appearances.svg

I don't know if this list is exhaustive -my guess: it isn't- many thanks for your action, Hope&Act3! (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Err... What is the problem with these images? Why should they be POV? And why should that be a deletion reason? --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

not the pictures, the accompagnying text: this way it is POV, who decides which one deserves to be shown as a country more, Kosovo, Palestine, TRNC, Abkhazia etc. 2008-10-25T13:36:13 ... the same one with every picture

clear? thanks, Hope&Act3! (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• There appears to have been a dispute at Wikipedia in 2008 over recognizing Kosovo. The comments are part of the preserved file history, and there's no reason to remove them. -Nard the Bard 00:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

well, so what is the relevance of this statement to all these pictures ? I don't understand you, still if this is your policy at Commons, keep what ever prank in yr pages and be happy, I will probably refrain to report anything from now on (too much pain staking for too little gain) Hope&Act3! (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File a DR if you want them removed (use a mass-deletion request). Kameraad Pjotr 07:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

user:Metler

please block that account. both contribs were about defamating the pope ("...is a son of a bitch", "...a pisser", "...dirty motherfucker",...). --JD {æ} 16:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Apparently the same as 84.175.201.15 (talk · contribs) as well. Wknight94 ^talk 16:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IP User: 41.207.163.5

Not sure what should officially be done, but a user soliciting personal information from me contacted me on my talk page, in what I obviously assume is a money laundering scam. I'd reccomend action be taken against this IP user, as I'd hate to see anyone be tricked into actually providing this person with their personal information. Gage (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and user warned. It might be some form of proxy at a guess. You look like the only one favoured with the deal :). Thanks for reporting it, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats so called Nigeria scam (see en:Advance-fee fraud), it comes from Togo these days and was so reported in the news at least in Germany some month ago (see e.g. german embassy in Togo, http://www.lome.diplo.de/Vertretung/lome/de/05/seite__Betrugsversuche.html), maybe we should include some phrases to e.g. Template:Spam finder? Additional if you have the Contributions Range gadget for /16,/24-/32 CIDR ranges activatet you can look up for contribs from 41.207.0.0/16 (thats 41.207.0.0 - 41.207.255.255) which includes 41.207.163.5 and Togonet, togolese ISP. This problem shouldnt be large on Commons, maybe other wikis already have filters for this? --Martin H. (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz

Repeatedly removing of {{move}} in Category talk:Prekmurian language. User is unconvincible; got already 4 blocks in dewiki, 2 of them current, for similar reasons. Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit: User:Doncsecz c&p'd my below comments from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Copyright violation? without a given reason, so I take the freedom to stroke out my comments, which have nothing to do with this case here. * Category:Prekmurian language All the files have the permission “I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.”

I heavily doubt that a current student (User:Doncsecz) is the copyright holder of a 1923 published work, but maybe I'm wrong.

This user is spamming across some 40 (!) wikipedias, including here at commons, with always the same scheme. He creates several articles with dubious sources and places dozens of links into other articles. The aim is, to exalt a local dialect to an international recognized language. Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

addendum: Seems there are already some proved copyvios of this user, see User talk:Doncsecz. --R.Schuster (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

R.Schuster! The Library of Murska Sobota was lincence to the free use of this image by 1945! Doncsecz (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In my talk is the discussion of my vexed image and not the prekmurian language R.Schuster! Doncsecz (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedia Commons! I please the commons, that by-pass to the R.Schuster's bounder number. My sources and my University in Szombathely also support this name prekmurian language. If needful, i recite few hundred books, essay, films and others, which attest, the prekmurian is a regional language the Slovene in Prekmurje and Hungary, not simply dialect. R.Schuster inexpert, not ken the Slovene dialects and Slovene language. This regional variant have low tradition, Marc. L. Greenberg the lecturer of the Kansas University in 1990's was wrote few essay about the prekmurian and his dissertation was the prekmurian dialect and literature.

This is Greenberg's works:

• Marc L. Greenberg: Ágosti Pável's Prekmurje Slovene grammar. Slavistična revija 37/1-3 (1989), 353-364.
• Marc L. Greenberg: Circumflex advancement in Prekmurje and beyond / O pomiku praslovanskega cirkumfleksa v slovenščini in kajkavščini, s posebnim ozirom na razvoj v prekmurščini in sosednjih narečjih. Slovene studies 14/1 (1992), 69-91.
• Marc L. Greenberg: Glasoslovni opis treh prekmurskih govorov in komentar k zgodovinskemu glasoslovju in oblikoglasju prekmurskega narečja. Slavistična revija 41/4 (1993), 465-487.
• Marc L. Greenberg: Archaisms and innovations in the dialect of Središče: (Southeastern Prlekija, Slovenia). Indiana Slavic studies 7 (1994), 90-102.
• Marc L. Greenberg: Prekmurje grammar as a source of Slavic comparative material. Slovenski jezik 7 (2009), 28-44.
• Marc L. Greenberg: Slovar beltinskega prekmurskega govora. Slavistična revija 36 (1988). 452–456. [Review essay of Franc Novak, Slovar beltinskega prekmurskega govora [A Dictionary of the Prekmurje Dialect of Beltinci].

R.Schuster was start rampage campaign in few wikipedia, query the sources, as every one is in Hungarian or Slovene language. R.Schuster disapprove, that in German ar not sources. The quest of the prekmurian on the part of the foreign states at present years begun (see: Marc L. Greenberg), but few linguist except, that the prekmurian not simply dialect, but for R.Schuster ([ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=367655069 1] His agency is the vandalism, as in absence of knowledges, added to which with chauvinist opinion wantonly down-degrade the prekmurian. Expresly galling and chauvinist his attitude. Doncsecz (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Here R.Schuster feign, that this lexicons not mention the prekmurian. This is pathological! The foreign quest of the prekmurian was even depart, and presently notice every Lexicon in this World? Doncsecz (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IP:110.161.3.26

Vandalises here and here. Used to do it also on other pages earlier.--Sanandros (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No edits for several hours, user seems to have got bored and gone away. I'll block for 24 as a precaution. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hyju

Removes deletion requests though the discussion isn't decided yet. See Commons:Deletion requests/Raruto and the linked files like File:Raruto 02.jpg (diff). --Don-kun (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done reverted his edits and blocked him for one day for repeated removal of deletion requests. axp_de^Hello! 09:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm here to ask his unblockage. The uploader removed the tags because he assumed he was right. After all, he got OTRS for it. So he presumed he was right. He didn't have a slightest idea he must goit the permission form the original creator. If he had been warning he would stop. It was presumed his bad faith. Mizunoryu (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all the block has expired. And even if his actions were based on other knowledge he should have told us instead of re-reverting without any comment! axp_de^Hello! 12:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the quick reply. And why didn't you talk to him first? It's easier to assume bad faith and block someone, isn't it? Whateva. What's done is done. Mizunoryu (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a German saying "Talking people can be helped." He repeatedly removed deletion requests without any comment ... so why didn't he tell us anything?!? axp_de^Hello! 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, why didn't you talk to him, so you could help him? I bet blocking soeone is always faster and easier. Specially when people don't speak your language. Mizunoryu (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

English is the common language on commons – it's not "mine" as well. And once again: If someone shows his aversion to talk and repeatedly vandalizes without any comment there is simply no basis for talks! axp_de^Hello! 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Quickly...

... see pls Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Luzzu, -jkb- (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorted or in progress I think - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

62.171.194.8

• 62.171.194.8 (talk · contribs) Minor stuff (trivial compared to :en:WP !) but it's a long-term pattern and there's nothing useful coming from this IP. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks. Bidgee (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The range is 62.171.194.0 - 62.171.195.255. While the second part, 62.171.195.0/24 is empty, the whole range 62.171.194.0/24 is full of vandal edits and blocked now. See:

• 62.171.194.9 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.8 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.7 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.6 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.5 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.45 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.44 (talk · contribs)(?)
• 62.171.194.43 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.42 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.41 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.40 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.4 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.39 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.38 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.37 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.36 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.33 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.32 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.31 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.29 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.21 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.20 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.13 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.11 (talk · contribs)
• 62.171.194.10 (talk · contribs)

I suggest to extend this block (range block on 62.171.194.0/24, anon only, account creation blocked) for a year with a permanent link to this posting. If it is a school project - the WHOIS may suggest this, they can contact the foundation and resolve the problem. Checking en.wikipedia for 62.171.194.0/24 edits gives a terrible result dating back to 2003 - thats 7 years of vandalism. Also on en.wp the second part of the range, 62.171.195.0/24, has no edits. Some IPs on en.wp are also blocked for 1 year as {{schoolblock}}. --Martin H. (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps a global block would be appropriate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I sent the problem to the Checkuser-list, not to have checkuser done on other projects but to have a larger group of people who knows about the problems and the block - documentation so to say. The range here on Commons will be blocked, to much vandalism and Commons is to vulnarable for that kind of editing and we obviosly have better things to do. If anyone disagree please give notice here. --Martin H. (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Profbond07

Profbond07 (talk · contribs) is uploading suspected copyright violations again. Has been repeatedly blocked before. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Put on hold, uploader has given notice on my talk page. Does somebody know whether images of the government are PD in india? --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful. Most foreign governments reserve the rights to authored works. PS: A bit late with that hold. ;) Sincerely, Blurpeace 10:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, copyright on works of the Indian government last for 60 years after publication (and are held by the government). (src). Kameraad Pjotr 11:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Blood libel

Resolved

There's a number of users (I suspect all of them are a single person) editing File:Místo vraždy Anežky Hrůzové.jpg, File:Symbolický hrob Anežky Hrůzové.jpeg and File:Symbolický hrob Anežky Hrůzové.jpg to add the anti-Semitic accusation that the killing of Anežka Hrůzová (see en:Hilsner Affair) was a ritual murder. (They have no other contributions.)

• JanKulTer (talk · contribs)
• 89.24.83.223 (talk · contribs)
• Rychlonožka 77 (talk · contribs)
• Danih Selver (talk · contribs)
• 67.159.45.50 (talk · contribs)

Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and indef blocked all the named accounts, though almost all have not edited in years leading me to believe they probably will not be back. As for the IPs, there is no recent activity, so really there is nothing to justify blocking them. Additionally, all the accounts are stale in regards to CheckUser evidence. Tiptoety ^talk 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

remove of deletion requests

see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:HairDome.jpg&diff=41284234&oldid=41270392 - this user has done this twice (to MY deletion request, terrible... :) ) Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't make the tag from En:WP work here...

I tagged 67.213.96.68 for vandalism, but it doesn't work. Help? What is the tag here?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Worst thing about working across projects - finding the bloody templates...:) This is the main page and the user talk ones are here. Somewhere is "preferences" is a tool that adds commonly used templates into the sidebar. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:Test}} is your friend. Multichill (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Useless edits by an IP

Please semi-protect the Files File:Zürich - Seebach - Sunrise Tower - Oerlikon Max-Bill-Platz IMG 4864.JPG and File:Zürich - Seebach - Sunrise Tower - Oerlikon Max-Bill-Platz IMG 4862.JPG to prevent IP users from doing senseless fights. --Carbenium (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Done by Tiptoety. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not completely done, the second file is still open. --Carbenium (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unending stream of misleading images from user:KVDP

There is a keen, but subject-matter inept, editor user:KVDP who continues to upload problematic images. Most of these are on engineering topics, but are so technically inaccurate and misleading as to warrant deletion, being beyond simple remedy by further editing. Some are also copyvio-problematic, as he appears not to understand the requirements around scans or derivative works. He also has a habit (which I regard as absolutely unacceptable) of uploading his incorrect image over previous correct images, even when this image was already in use on WP. See File:Locomotive_fire_tube_boiler_schematic.png These aren't even derivative or retouched images, they're whole new images.

His images are universally "poor" at best, yet he also has the habit of adding them immediately to WP, often replacing other or better images. These additions are often done from an IP account (uncommon Belgian ISP IP range, so they're pretty obvious at :en:).

For a list, follow the deletion requests linked from user_talk:KVDP. See also a few of the related editor's talk pages. My own are here: Firebox & Hydrogen-based_domestic_energy_storage.

These images are wasting the time of a number of editors, who have far better things to be spending their time on. As most of his images are engineering-related, this also tends to be the same small group of people being lumbered with the effort. A fairly large amount of effort has gone into trying to set him straight, but he still insists on adding images with "howlers" of technical mistakes on them. If challenged on this, his usual response is to claim that WP:OR isn't a problem at Commons. Now that's fair enough, but we still have a basic requirement for "educational" scope and misleading gross errors presented as truth are outside this.

I for one have had enough of this. What else can be done? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it regrettable that me and Andy Dingley can't be more on a same page, despite earlier collaborations on images. I believe that you made this entry, Andy, given the new images I made regarding the lead-acid battery. As discussed in this talk page, the uploading of the image: Accumulatory.png was done simply as I consider it a logical update to the image, and not a "completely new image" (the image still uses most of the old image). As for not understanding the requirements around scans or derivative works, this is not completely true; I understand what a derivate image is and what a own work is, but it is not clear where the line is drawn; ie when comes the tresshold that a image is modified enough so as to talk of a own image. On this answer, which I too posed on one of the talk pages of my images, I so far did not see any reply, indicating that this issue too isn't fully understood by the community itself. Finally, I find it regrettable that you find my method of operation (MO) so terrible, despite that requires but the least amount of effort on your side.

KVDP (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While it doesn't address all of your concerns, Andy Dingley, we discourage contributors from uploading files over existing files, unless the new file is an obvious improvement to the old, that is to say, it is unlikely to be challenged or reverted. Since it appears that KVDP's contributions do not fall into this category, it is appropriate to instruct KVDP to always upload his/her contributions under new file names instead of over existing files by other contributors. S/he has been warned twice, so further instances should be reverted immediately and enforced with protections or blocks as appropriate.[75][76]

KVDP (talk · contribs)'s talk page is disturbing. I see quite a number of deleted files, many notification of deletion requests and a number of problems with permissions/copyright. Regarding the deletion requests, Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams provides a good introduction. While we can appreciate the hard work of KVDP, it seems that many of his/her contributions are not in COM:SCOPE. This is aggravated when they overwrite files that are in use. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Walter Siegmund - interesting contributions but I feel probably out of scope and a little disruptive. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I warned KVDP as above.[77] Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also reluctantly felt it necessary to spend quite a lot of time reviewing KVDP's work. I too have better things to too, and cannot devote the time it really needs to clean up the large back-catalogue. The flood-tide of this ineptitude abated for a while recently, and it was a welcome relief. While the warning from Walter Siegmund is, I suppose, a first step in a process, I doubt if it will have much effect in the short term in getting a remarkably thick-skinned user to accept what is being said. Could some admin(s) please adopt a watching brief. Globbet (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Today we have this: File:Parallellogram steering linkage.png Which apart from possible copyright issues also has the problem that this linkage isn't a parallelogram. See talk: of new prodded article at en:Talk:Parallelogram steering linkage#Inaccuracies. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• My two cents' worth is much the same. I have been involved in DRs with the subject over railway, electrical, green energy, and marine files. As I look down the images he has contributed, a significant percentage of those on which I am qualified to comment are simply wrong. Others are pencil sketches that are not useful and, in some cases, duplicate SVGs. I have been gradually applying DRs to them, but have only so much time and interest in cleaning up this kind of thing. Can we at least get a moratorium on new uploads until we get the past history cleaned up?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken files

... in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Statuary_Hall_Collection as File:Russell NSHC.jpg, File:Kearny.jpg, File:Marquette NSHC.jpg and more. This is a national shame. Someone should give the original source a harsh protest 78.55.52.63 09:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have re-uploaded the three files via Internet Archive. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Blood libel once again

... And the user is back at it with Mike Blbeček Rosoft (talk · contribs) (the account's name is also an attack on me). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep - blocked now. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:I hate you

Troll, obviously has no intent of contributing constructively. Probably should delete his userpage, too.  fetchcomms☛ 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

USER:RaspberryRush

Resolved

Uploaded an image just for vandalize (file:BadGuyAug72.jpg). He's now blanking a deletion request. Thanx. --r@ge (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, image deleted as well. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Rehman and File:Sri_Lanka_location_map.svg

After twice adding the superseded template without discussion, he now removes the necessary category Category:Location maps of Asia and puts the map into another category, which is not a subcategory of Category:Location maps (2008 standard). The user has been warned: [78]. Could somebody please stop the user messing around with the location map project? Uwe Dedering (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

user 150.101.96.32

See this and this and that after a warning on the user page. Wouter (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clear case of vandalism. But the last edit of this IP was on July 29th, 2010. Since then no new "edits". In my view there is need for further actions (like block). --High Contrast (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nicowa

Vandalist. No legal informations. Take a look on User talk:Nicowa. --212.183.32.110 00:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

166.205.5.28 (talk · contribs)

User:166.205.5.28 has opened a DR for File:Francesco Torniello da Novara Letter I 1517.png with the reason “JkjkynlxQpnuu”. I do not want to handle this myself as it is a file that I've uploaded myself. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Junk - seems to have been sorted now. However I think you are correct to leave it to others :) Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Clifford "Cliff" Harris

• Crosswiki long-term vandal, already blocked on en.wiki. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

  User:Clifford "Cliff" Harris has 0 edits on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  The user seems to have engaded in sockpuppetry and harassment on English Wikipedia, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachel Oreos. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

   Blocked --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki 323 (talk · contribs)

Please block this user. [79]. –Tryphon^☂ 01:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jyagdi

Could someone please block Special:Contributions/Jyagdi? He vandalized several pages with advertisements. I just reverted two which were unreverted until now. btw: same at enwiki with his SUL account. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Stopped a while back so no further action required for now I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiLoader

Too much copyvios avdertisimentsEsteban (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - deleted some & blocked. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

204.234.82.253 (talk · contribs)

See this and this and this and this and that after a warning on the user page. Pure vandalism. Wouter (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone did a final warning. Block without hesitation if they come back I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User 168.254.225.254

This user has been blocked for 6 months. Since then again many cases of vandalism see for example this and this and that and the most recent one. Please block for ever. Wouter (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked for one year. It appears to belong to a school. Tiptoety ^talk 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User 62.21.185.229

This user has made today 12 vandalism edits. A short block may help to avoid that he/she continues. I have put a warning on the talk page but doubt whether that will help. Wouter (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - blocked for 3 days, target semied for a week. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gah1997 (talk · contribs)

Again copyvios. Was blocked before. --Kungfuman (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The next time he gets blocked when he keeps on uploading copyvios. --High Contrast (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hallo1996

Hallo1996 (talk · contribs) uploaded an image that is part of an harassment page on German Wikipedia, for which the user has already been blocked on dewiki. Please delete File:Hallo999.png (hist • logs • abuse log) and block the user. Thanks, --Church of emacs (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done by raymond --Church of emacs (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kohser 4.0

Sockpuppet of banned User:Thekohser. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here on Commons Thekohser is not blocked nor banned. We however also dont want him to transfer problems from en.wp to Commons as Kohser 4.0 (talk · contribs) did. --Martin H. (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked - Please see the block log entry for my reasoning. Tiptoety ^talk 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

203.122.254.26

Please block this user. See this and that and the warning already given on the user page. Wouter (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked. ZooFari 15:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also 203.122.254.24 (talk · contribs) (made test edits in the same image as 203.122.254.26 (talk · contribs)). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks. ZooFari 16:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

82.0.83.150

This user has been blocked in March 2010 but since then vandalised 4 times. Including changes as "North East" into "South West" that may be not recognized so easy. Wouter (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 21:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate image

File:Four fingers.jpg, the author may have made other such posts... I didn't know how to report just one image tho

Other suspect images (graphic)... File:Masturbation Techniques - 3-Finger Technik von hinten 640x480.gif, File:2-Finger-Technik-unter-Oberschenkel 640x480.gif

-Tesseract2 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

71.41.26.226

This user vandalized 5 times within 7 minutes. For example this. A short block may be useful. Wouter (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 day. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

195.194.238.110

This user has been blocked before and warned before but started again. See this and that. Pease block again. Wouter (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be kinda school. Should not be able to vandalize for three month now. abf «Cabale!» 12:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

82.198.250.5

This user has been blocked twice and starts again see this. Please block again. Wouter (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a school IP. Seeing as the school year just started, I have blocked it for six months to prevent further abuse. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

208.22.191.200

This user has been blocked before but started again: see this. Wouter (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked for three days, while it is a school IP and the lack of on-going issues I do not think a six month block is warranted just yet. Bidgee (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

92.43.64.67

This user has been blocked before. In May 2010 again and now again. May be a block for two weeks? Wouter (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 13:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

194.209.88.157

All contributions are acts of vandalism. Has had warnings before. The latest 'contribution' is here. Wouter (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done: precautionary blocked for 3 days. --High Contrast (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

209.242.141.25

Many times vandalism. Has had warnings before. The latest 'contribition' is here. Wouter (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

48 hours for now. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 09:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

94.101.160.1

This IP address is registered to Essex Schools. Several warnings before. Latest 'contribution' is here but then put back. May be a short block? Wouter (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

48 hours for now. Thank you, --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 09:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Vituzzu

My talk here has been trashed here by a vandal Vituzzu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for two days, with attacks personal.Please ,can you bloking now this vandalism here, the message is written in rought Italian and rought traslation, by the vandal. I do not know his IP - Thank you --Alpha (^{my name is nobody...}) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Again many vandalism in my talk here and here from this vandal Vituzzu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, now he need a serius blok.

thanks --Alpha (^{my name is nobody...}) 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dupe, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#many vandalism by User:Vituzzu. Multichill (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 15:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Template vandalism

There was recently a rash of vandalism to a slew of obscure transcluded templates - Template:Time, Template:Date-time separator, etc. This could well happen again, so be on the lookout for such unprotected templates. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The vandal, see above, apparently klicked on edit on random files and opened all the 'Templates used on this page' and vandalized any unprotected template with his criminal gibberish. It was only a small number of templates but due to the date functions of {{Information}} every file using the information template is affected. Regrettably an open project like ours is vulnerable to such idiots. --Martin H. (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Template vandalism (contd.)

Another case here : File:Rue La Bruyère, 1.jpg. As I am not sure which template is involved, I have left it as is. — Mu (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't see anything, possibly a cache problem. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

solved it. Geagea (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Vandalism of COM:AN continues. How could IP 98.235.176.167 do that[80], as the page had been protected[81] quite some minutes before? As I've to go offline now, take care. --Túrelio (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It was only move protected. I've semied it for an hour. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And now another 6hrs. Also CU request - Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wantstime2 -mattbuck (Talk) 00:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wantstime2

Resolved

• User: Wantstime2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Serious WP:NPA on User:Tiptoety, using unprotected templates Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Needs to lose talk page access too! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  It's ongoing using other unprotected templates: See :File:Apple Store, North Michigan Avenue, Chicago.jpg and File:Jerusalem Mea Shearim posters.jpg. Unfortunately, I don't know Commons' template system well enough to undo the vandalism, but hopefully someone can figure out which templates've been used. -- Arvind (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  He vandalised a load of obscure unprotected transcluded templates. Revdeleted, indefed, templates protected, but we need to be on the lookout for more potential target transcluded templates. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  Known cross-wiki vandal. It has been globally locked now too. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 21:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

urgent

user:Underoccur [82] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolo (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Indefed him. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Chris Colfer in the Teen Choice Awards 2010.jpg

IP user has continually removed the copyright violation template, despite efforts to stop them. Any help would be appreciated. Also, I'm unsure if it applies here, but I believe the IP and the user Neo ender may be sock puppets. Gage (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

170.177.253.12

This user has recently again vandalized images: this and that. A short block may be useful. Wouter (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems too late to me, as the last edit was yesterday and there is no activity today. --Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

85.31.137.11

IP of a school that has been blocked and warned more than once. The last contribution. Wouter (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wouter, same problem as above. Last edit 4 days ago. Anyway, thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. thanks for notifying. --High Contrast (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Valkýra 333

Previously reported here. This user is a serial vandal with numerous sockpuppets on various projects (dubbed "vandal with a grudge" by me; I remember seeing him on English, Czech and German Wikipedia) who - among other things - harasses Czech users by posting vulgar messages or inappropriate images on their user and user talk pages. (I used to track his activity at en:User:Mike Rosoft/Vandal with a grudge. In the end, I abandoned that page because first, he doesn't deserve such attention; second, he seemed to have quit.)

I request a permanent block, and blocking of the underlying IP address (and any sleeper accounts) via CheckUser. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see - it's probably too late for CheckUser. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

209.221.90.204

This user has been blocked before. Although not frequent in 2010, all 2010 contributions of this school are vandalism. The last 'contribution' is this. Wouter (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment This IP was last active on October 7th, 2010. I think blocking is not necessary at the moment. --High Contrast (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

168.216.16.50

This user is very active the last days. See also this and 168.216.67.171. A short block of that user may be good as well. Wouter (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done: Blocked. Thank you. --High Contrast (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by Adambro

Undeletion request [[83]]

I wish to make a complaint against user Adambro for vandalism and threats. The user did the following: 1. He deleted a legitimate image that I uploaded without due process in an arbitrary manner. 2. The image was a participant in Feature Pictures Candidates and he interfered with that process outside the proper channel and 3. He implies a threat of blocking me by citing an example of a block he executed on another user. I respectfully request that the image be reinstated and to instruct such individual to refrain from such activity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And of which image are you talking? Please give the link, please. --High Contrast (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

First you act silly, and then you come here and complain? Seriously, there is so much not right about this. High Contrast, File:Example of photo montage for propaganda purposes.jpg. ZooFari 21:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that Adambro should have let another admin delete the photo since he is the one that made the block. But I also find it hard to see what the image was good for. So if Adambro had not deleted it the next admin probably would. --MGA73 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Adambro has history of disrespecting conflict of interest. But either way, half the claims above are completely false and the image was uploaded for only for jokes. ZooFari 21:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not so. I made a joke out of it but it was not uploaded as a "joke." Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

1. The issue is very simple: Did the administrator follow proper procedure? Yes or no? There are clear procedures to be followed, that is why they are written after all. If procedures exist but are violated at will by the proper authorities, then none of this effort makes any sense.

2. Commons Scope: The image is within the scope of Commons. The file is a legitimate image that illustrates a method of propaganda. I guess it was effective enough to elicit a response from the censor.

3. This is a gross act of censorship and abuse of power. The instant the censor decided to forgo procedures established to maintain order, he also violated the trust placed on him to uphold the rules entrusted to him as well as the public trust. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

ZooFari: I am dead serious about the issue. I say this to you with all due respect. Censorship is no joke. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it subject to speedy deletion. But I would let it go. The image was wrong to be uploaded and not a good idea to use for argument. ZooFari 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Also please give the diffs for "vandalism and threats". ZooFari 22:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The threat: [[84]] The vandalism: Deletion of a file ilegally, File:Example of photo montage for propaganda purposes.jpg

The procedures for deletion transcribed below:

Speedy deletion

Shortcuts:

COM:SPEEDY

COM:CSDThere are certain instances when a file needs to be speedy deleted and under which an administrator can delete pages, images and other files on sight. Speedy deletions can be tagged with the following, based on their nature:

copyvio for obvious copyright violations. Use ... to explain why it's a copyright violation.

bad name for non-controversial renamed and unused files or pages, such as misspellings or inappropriate files names like File:Image.jpg. Usually this is reserved for files you uploaded with incorrect names (make sure they are unused and provide a link to the newly named file).

speedydelete for other reasons for speedy deletions. Don't forget to add a reason like this: ...

fair use for files that have been tagged with a fair use rationale.

An administrator will delete the file/page in due time. If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request (see below). Always make sure that all local links to a file or page are corrected and updated before deletion. The files/pages listed for speedy deletion are included automatically in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and its subcategories.

Note that a media file or article is not a speedy deletion candidate in the following cases:

If it is a suspected but not clear copyright violation place it on Commons:Deletion requests.

If it is a work that is very similar (or identical) to another, it's a redundant file, which mandates a different procedure. See below.

Please always remember: Before deleting images in speedy deletion, make sure that the user has placed it there in accordance with these deletion guidelines. If not, please modify the template, moving it off of this page. Always check the file history to determine that the proper image description has not been vandalised.

A file in Candidates for speedy deletion can be speedy deleted under the following circumstances:

Corrupted, infected by a virus, unintentionally blank, etc. (if in doubt, list it on Commons:Deletion requests as an unknown format/content).

Has previously been deleted under Commons deletion guidelines.

Licensed under any non-free license (like fair use, noncommercial or permission-only) or it is a clear copyright violation.

Was uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, and/or spamming.

When speedy-deleting files, it is suggested but not required to run GlobalUsage in order to fix uses on Wikimedia projects.

A page can be deleted if it is:

Empty and has no significant history.

A clear copyright violation.

Patent nonsense, a test or vandalism.

A user page or subpage whose deletion has been requested by the user.

A user page or subpage of a nonexistent user.

A redirect over which another page must be moved.

A redirect to a nonexistent page.

A category with no content or containing only a parent category.

A talk page of deleted content (unless they contain anything worth saving).

A page that falls outside of Commons' scope.

A violation of the privacy policy.

So my question is: Was proper procedure followed? This is a very clear cut case of an administrator violating procedures. If an administrator violates procedure, he violates the rules of wikipedia. He/she takes justice in his/her hands with no accountability. Imagine a policeman shooting a subject because he thinks the suspect is guilty before bringin him in front of the judge!!!

Clearly, this administrator is violating official Wikipedia policy, below, I transcribe the official guideleness for administrators:

Community role

Administrators are experienced and trusted members of the Commons community who have taken on additional maintenance work and have been entrusted with the admin tools by public consensus/vote. Different admins have different areas of interest and expertise, but typical admin tasks include determining and closing deletion requests, deleting copyright violations, undeleting files where necessary, protecting Commons against vandalism, and working on templates and other protected pages. Of course, some of these tasks can be done by non-admins as well.

Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus.

Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Of course, some admins are influential, but that derives not from their position as such but from the personal trust they have gained from the community.

This is a clear violation of Deletion policy, either speedy or regular. The rules are clear.

And as a courtesy, can I be informed, as the uploader of the image, the reason as derived from the guidelines that make my image subject to speedy deletion?

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly out of scope, please be honest enough to admit this. If you truly disagree, raise an Undeletion Request. 99of9 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

99of9: I have raised an undeletion request. I cannot see clearly why it is "out of scope". It is a legitimate file and the method is a widely use tool in advertising, comedy, parody, propaganda, etc., etc. But lets resolve the issue of procedure first. The actions of the administrator are in clear violation of stated policy. Policy clearly states Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies and administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The deletion policies allow administrators to speedily delete images which are clearly out of scope. Since I think it is clearly out of scope, I would have been within my rights to delete it, and would probably have done so. Since you think it is not, you have raised an Undeletion Review. If that review finds that it is in scope, then both Adambro and I will need to reset our scope-ometers. If it is found to be out of scope, I hope that you will reset yours, or risk embarrassing yourself with future unfounded claims of abuse. Simple. --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How about "Was uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, and/or spamming". Maybe not literally from that statement, but same concept, perhaps humiliation. The only difference is that you got lucky, because Mila did not take it personally. I also want you to take note that administrators do not always perform actions that follow exact word from the policy. We can't fit everything in a page. If an admin knows that something should be deleted for obvious disruption, that admin deletes for the better of Commons. I don't think that image would want to be seen by many at the DRs. I do not consider Adambro's actions vandalism, because the intent of that was to keep junk away from Commons. The threat I think you deserve, because I well know that you have been participating in FPC for a long time now, enough to know that the nomination was ridiculous.

On a side note, perhaps you should have discussed about it with the user first, the way it should be? A speedy deletion can seem obvious at first glance, but not always conforming the policies. When this happens, it is called a mistake. You should check for that before bringing this to the board (if not, at least do it on the right page, which would be User problems). ZooFari 02:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So you are at least suggesting that I "uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, and/or spamming". Maybe not literally from that statement, but same concept, perhaps humiliation."? Well, two things: First you must prove my intent, otherwise is a slanderous accusation and second, the image in no way humilliates Mila. Ask her. If she feels humilliated or attacked or ridiculed, I will offer a sincere apology and go along with the deletion and make no further fuss about it. Please point out where do you see the purpose of vandalism, whom am I attacking or the intent of spamming.

You call my post junk. That is a personal attack against me. Prove that my work is junk. You may not like it, but it is far from being junk.

As far as you wanting me to take note that administrators not always follow policy. What a dangerous statement! It is obedience of the law, policy or common agreement that makes society and groups coherent and capable of functioning! The law or policies can be unpopular to some but at the end are the core foundations of civilized society! Then why bother to write the rules at all if they can be broken by an obscure bureaucrat at will? It is precisely rules, law, policy that protects society and communities from abusive acts of power! Administrator status is not a license to do as he/she pleases, but to uphold the policies that bind everyone together! His/her responsibility is to make sure policy is followed, not broken!!! Imagine a football game where the referees invent the rules of the game as they go along!!!

Now, granted, the administrator may have made a "mistake". Well, that is easily solved. Restore the image. If that is done, I will extend apologies for all the inconvenience I may have caused.

Do I deserve a threat? Are you really serious? I posted the image in all seriousness. I really don´t think you want to go down that road.

All I am asking is if the administrator followed proper procedure or not. If the administrator did not follow proper procedure than I ask to reinstate the image and to follow stated policy. It is clear to me that the administrator did not follow proper procedure in the deletion process and in the the FPC forum. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

An undeletion request is the appropriate next step. Threats of blocks seem ill advised to me. As do calling a deletion you don't agree with "vandalism". If there is a undeletion request, please post a link to it here (at the top of the section for reference). ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has moved here, after all... and it curioser and curioser [[85]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)