Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
- Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
- Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Bidgee copyright trolling
[edit]This user has demanded payment through Pixsy, for photographs that they've have free licensed on this site. They demand we pay $3000. This user needs to be stopped! Gto2567 (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Most of the above is a bunch of vituperation in various directions, and warnings from and to various people to knock off the vituperation. There is no substantive accusation against Bidgee, just an accusation that he threatened to sue the owner of some unspecified website for making unspecified use of an unspecified photo. From what little evidence there is, it may simply be a case of Bidgee pursuing damages for a blatant copyvio, which would be entirely in his rights.
That, said, if there was substance to the original complaint, any intelligent discussion was headed off by a non-admin with no obvious connection to the matter making rather abusive remarks to the complainant and driving them away from the discussion, and by other users (mostly IPs) being comparably abusive toward Bidgee. I'd have no objection if some other admin wants to pursue some blocks or other sanctions of the various disruptors.
Not done No administrative action taken. If there is something substantive here, start a new thread. & thanks to Chris.sherlock2 for suggesting I come back and close this. - Jmabel ! talk 05:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to the user who contacted me privately to inform me of this unfounded allegation.
- I will keep this brief, since I’m making this comment during an unpaid break at work.
- I do not use Pixsy to deal with any licensing infringements, I do not have and have never held an account with them. I have in the past requested for those who fail to follow the Creative Commons license requirements to address them, only in extreme cases I will take it to a copyright lawyer.
- The OP is either lying or is being duped (fraud). I would like to know more, since there would be stolen identity fraud if it is a real claim. Bidgee (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Since there's a closing mention, I don't know whether any edit is still needed; nevertheless, I rewrote my comments above. Still, an individual who's, by all appearances, representing a company ("They demand we pay[..]"), finding the ANU board (instead of the help desk or village pump) with his first edit after registration on the same day and leveraging accusations that also look by all appearances as a try to shift blame will IMHO never become a contributor that can participate in building a good media repository. I am aware that it may be usual to express denials or refusals in a roundabout way in English-speaking regions, that's at least the content I recall from essays about different company cultures I read in media outlets over the years, but calling out ineptitude still felt right. Or do you want to bother with a new guest who's waltzing in, claiming having suffered some torts and asking for punitive measures in the third sentence they ever wrote? This behaviour is much much more closer to classical internet trolls populating the commentary sections on news outlet sites or social media offerings than to people genuinely requesting assistance. Last but not least, there weren't any indications whatsoever of Bidgee engaging in intensive defence of his IP rights on his talk page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- I’m a bit weirded out that one of the anons knew that I had a bit of a dispute over categories with Bidgee. Something didn’t seem quite right. Whatever animosity or troubles I have with Bidgee, he doesn’t deserve whatever these folks are dishing out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- It’s all a bit strange. Still waiting in them returning to address they false accusations but not holding my breath. Bidgee (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I also had such a case some years ago where an organization wrote me that a copyright lawyer on behalf of a large photo agency demands money from them for using a photo I made. They never responded after I wrote that I do not work with these agency or lawyer. But they could also not confirm that they really used my photo and not the one of someone else looking very similar. GPSLeo (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I hope you are OK Bidgee and this didn’t take you away from work too badly. Despite our differences, you have done a lot for Wikimedia and I know of a mutual friend you once looked after when others were being horrid to him. You’ll always have my respect for that. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- It’s all a bit strange. Still waiting in them returning to address they false accusations but not holding my breath. Bidgee (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I’m a bit weirded out that one of the anons knew that I had a bit of a dispute over categories with Bidgee. Something didn’t seem quite right. Whatever animosity or troubles I have with Bidgee, he doesn’t deserve whatever these folks are dishing out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Since there's a closing mention, I don't know whether any edit is still needed; nevertheless, I rewrote my comments above. Still, an individual who's, by all appearances, representing a company ("They demand we pay[..]"), finding the ANU board (instead of the help desk or village pump) with his first edit after registration on the same day and leveraging accusations that also look by all appearances as a try to shift blame will IMHO never become a contributor that can participate in building a good media repository. I am aware that it may be usual to express denials or refusals in a roundabout way in English-speaking regions, that's at least the content I recall from essays about different company cultures I read in media outlets over the years, but calling out ineptitude still felt right. Or do you want to bother with a new guest who's waltzing in, claiming having suffered some torts and asking for punitive measures in the third sentence they ever wrote? This behaviour is much much more closer to classical internet trolls populating the commentary sections on news outlet sites or social media offerings than to people genuinely requesting assistance. Last but not least, there weren't any indications whatsoever of Bidgee engaging in intensive defence of his IP rights on his talk page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Tosurasit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This user has a pattern of placing speedy deletion tags, such as {{No source}}, on files, particularly those from offline sources, without providing a rationale when questioned. This behaviour has been observed on Thai Wikimedia sites, where the user, under the username Rameshe999, was permanently banned for mass deletion nominations. The user has also operated several sockpuppet accounts, as documented here. It is requested that their edits be reviewed and potentially reverted. --Wutkh (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- Another thing I just noticed, they tagged {{No source}} to their sockpuppet accounts' photo (e.g. Special:Diff/1091144685, upload by Pitpisit) --Wutkh (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Done Blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I also blocked all socks: Category:Sockpuppets of Pitpisit. Yann (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much --Wutkh (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
User:KainanCity CP
[edit]they says a employee of a city office. but, we don't verify it (COM:UPOLICY). is it correct? eien20 (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Eien20: Convenience link KainanCity CP
- I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking for verification of what someone says on their user page they do for a living, no, we do not normally verify that. Is their some situation in which you believe they are doing something that would be invalid if that claim were not true? - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't verify they are city officers. e.g. File:Kainan-city-streetscape.jpg is same as [1], File:Kainan-city-sakuas-roadside-station.jpg is same as https://www.instagram.com/p/CwpBi3lRcRG/. is they a city office really? --eien20 (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Eien20: I don't understand why the statement on their use page matters. It would be very odd for someone to claim a job they don't have and declare a non-existent conflict of interest, but even if they did, a conflict of interest lets them do less, not more.
- If they are (as they apparently are) uploading copyrighted materials previously published without evidence of a free license (in this case, as "own work"), then it does not matter who they are employed by, they still need to go through the same COM:VRT process as anyone else. Most likely they are legitimate here, though, because they are uploading higher-resolution versions than what was published, or at least than what we know was published.
- I see you did not notify them of this discussion on their user talk page. I will do so now. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I am sorry for the inconvenience. I believe that they are a authorized being. this account provide files is provide under CC-By v4 even though their website is not provide under CC-by v4.0 ([2]). --eien20 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't verify they are city officers. e.g. File:Kainan-city-streetscape.jpg is same as [1], File:Kainan-city-sakuas-roadside-station.jpg is same as https://www.instagram.com/p/CwpBi3lRcRG/. is they a city office really? --eien20 (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Edit warring by FunkMonk insisting that thousands of videos of birds are videos of paleontology
[edit]I don't know if there's a better place to take this and if you think there is this could be moved there. I already talked with the user on the talk page with no success.
FunkMonk is edit warring at the Category:Videos of dinosaurs I created, insisting that
- the 3,806 videos of birds like ducks, geese etc all belong into the Videos of paleontology category (and by extension the Paleontology and Videos of Earth sciences cat) despite that this is factually false and despite that this renders the category useless / just pollutes it
- that all videos anyhow depicting a dinosaur, including a music video and old fantasy films, are videos of the science of paleontology,
the scientific study of the life of the past, mainly but not exclusively through the study of fossils
(earlier I had copied the subset of videos that actually are about paleontology into that Category:Videos of paleontology; there could also be a subcat like 'Videos of dinosaur paleontology' for example)
Prototyperspective (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- A single revert is not "edit-warring", and you're the only one who keeps reverting. Dinosaurs are generally categorised as a palaeontological subject, as they are on Wikipedia itself[3], there is no logical reason why they shouldn't be here too. Everyone knows birds are dinosaurs, but everyone also knows what most people mean when they say dinosaur. No need to be counter-productively pedantic. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- You reverted twice. The Wikipedia category may need fixing too and is no good reason to introduce this inaccuracy to here. Additionally, there is little use of Wikipedia deepcategory views unlike on Commons where pollution categories like Paleontology or Earth sciences with thousands of bird videos helps nobody and is inappropriate. Dinosaurs are a paleontological subject, but not currently living birds and neither are music videos or videos of old fantasy films videos of paleontology. This is not counterproductive, it's caring about accuracy instead of slowly letting the categories fade into meaninglessness and usefulness as well as making sure Commons categories are useful and show what they claim to show etc. I think you're being pedantic on insisting on this change when it's simply factually false which should be the end of the story. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Birds are dinosaurs. Get over it. If you want to fix the categorization here, then set up some sort of structure with 'archaic dinosaurs' separate from 'dinosauria' Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Birds are not dinosaurs. Birds are believed to be biologically related to dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them equivalent to dinosaurs, especially not for purposes of categorization. (There's more of a phylogenetic basis for describing birds as a type of reptile, but that isn't a useful description for purposes of categorization either.) Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to make a fuss about categorization, but birds are descendants of theropod dinosaurs, and by modern biological standards, that puts them in the clade of Dinosauria and thus they are dinosaurs. It's a definition, and definitions are always going to be debatable, but biologists define groups of living things by clades, and clade Aves (birds) is a subset of clade Dinosauria (dinosaurs). And birds are more closely related to T. rex than T. rex is to Triceratops; it's only recency bias that has us lump T. rex and Triceratops together and exclude the emu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Birds are dinosaurs. Get over it.
Are you referring to me? You may want to reread because I'm totally fine with birds being dinosaurs. Or are you saying it's okay to remove the categorization of videos of birds flying being videos of paleontology? It's somewhat unclear. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)- Class Aves being in claude Dinosauria does not mean that "Birds are dinosaurs" in any useful or meaningful linguistic way. The term "dinosaur" was specifically constructed to refer to diverse groups of long extinct species, and that is still the word is still generally used for. To classify living birds within "paleontology" is simply wrong per what en:w:Paleontology means. The relationship of any existing species of birds to dinosaurs is much more distant than the relationship of living people to Homo habalis - and we do so not categorize living people, even though we're fellow Hominini. I think most educated people are aware that birds and dinosaurs are significantly related, if one feels that this fact needs to be more widely known, categorizing living birds as "paleontology" is not a useful way to do so. I don't know if the intent was to be edgy or provocative, if so see Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Do a Google search or Google Books search on "non-avian dinosaurs". It's a reasonably common phrase. Why is grouping birds in with their 100 million year old ancestors, just like we do with mammals, not useful? It is productive to understand that the dinosaurs did not just go extinct and the mammals took over, instead the dinosaurs are still one of the more prominent groups of creatures on the planet.
- Birds are not dinosaurs. Birds are believed to be biologically related to dinosaurs, but that doesn't make them equivalent to dinosaurs, especially not for purposes of categorization. (There's more of a phylogenetic basis for describing birds as a type of reptile, but that isn't a useful description for purposes of categorization either.) Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Humans is a redirect to Category:Homo sapiens, which is a member of Category:Hominidae. What's in that category is partial, but if you keep digging, it includes categories like Category:Politicians of Argentina, and thus File:Aníbal Fernández, Security Minister.jpg is categorized as Hominidae. And frankly, humans are always an exception.
- That said the issue seems to be including all the fantasy and living dinosaur stuff into paleontology, which is not helpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- One has to pay attention to the exact wording. Prosfilaes said "Do a Google search or Google Books search on 'non-avian dinosaurs'." @Omphalographer said "Birds are not dinosaurs." Both have it true in a certain way. Birds ARE (biologically) dinosaurs, but the common language has it that "dinosaur", those killed of by the Cretaceous extinction event, actually means "non-avian dinosaur". The scientific imperfection in our category system here stems from the common language use, it's as @Infrogmation said: "Class Aves being in claude Dinosauria does not mean that "Birds are dinosaurs" in any useful or meaningful linguistic way."
- I think that, as written below, putting Aves material of living organism in paleontology categories is wrong. On Wikipedias, there are two different category trees for organisms in parallel: one using scientific, binomial names and one using common names if available. Something similar could be a broader solution here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- And as I said, "Birds are dinosaurs" is useful, by removing the idea that the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Jurassic and instead conveying that many groups of many animals went extinct, and that certain groups of dinosaurs and mammals survived the mass extinctions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
"Birds are dinosaurs" is useful, by removing the idea that the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Jurassic and instead conveying that many groups of many animals went extinct, and that certain groups of dinosaurs and mammals survived the mass extinctions
- And as I said, "Birds are dinosaurs" is useful, by removing the idea that the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Jurassic and instead conveying that many groups of many animals went extinct, and that certain groups of dinosaurs and mammals survived the mass extinctions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- While that may be true, it's not the job of categories to convey that message. Categories are there to help users find images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Categories exist to help people find content. Someone searching the category dinosaur is not looking for a goose. Let's not miss the forest for the trees here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Precisely. To quote Jmabel from another recent thread:
Commons categorization isn't mainly about ontology, it's about helping people find things.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC) - Just to clarify: this originally was not about whether birds are dinosaurs and I don't really care about the question – it's whether (any/all) videos of living birds belong into the (Videos of) paleontology category.
- Don't care whether this is solved by removing the birds subcategory or basically by removing the Videos of paleontology cat on the Videos of dinosaur cat where the subset of videos directly in that cat that are about paleontology directly copied into the Videos of paleontology cat (already did this). I think if birds are widely accepted to scientifically be dinosaurs, then the subcat does belong into it. Especially if other cats are also structured like it which makes sense.
- In that case, the aforementioned issues could be solved by having a separate category Category:Non-avian dinosaurs which may be a needed or good cat to have anyway. Non-avian dinosaurs is a common accurate term. (Btw, note that there aren't just ordinary people searching files by colloquial associations among the Commons users.) Furthermore, again not all videos depicting dinosaurs such as 1920s films showing some are videos of paleontology so I still don't think it should be set on the entire cat even if the Aves subcat is removed; and there could be a subcat for these videos (containing e.g. videos from a natural history museum, showing fossils and explaining current paleontological knowledge about some dinosaurs and interviewing some paleontologist) which does have the cat set. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this reminder. Yes - paleontology is "the scientific study of the life of the past". It isn't specific to dinosaurs (however one may define those), but a video depicting modern-day species like birds is not "of paleontology" in any sense. Omphalographer (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Toruhoney back to copyvios after block
[edit]Toruhoney (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) was previously temporarily blocked for repeated copyvios. After the block was lifted, immediately uploaded another. Think a longer possibly permanent block is in order. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done Every single one of their 57 uploads has been a copyvio; it's clear that they aren't listening. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Abidahnaf008
[edit]Abidahnaf008 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This user keeps uploading copyrighted photos from the internet. Please see their talk page, it is full of deletion notices.
Apart from File:Syed Nazrul Islam in 1970.png, all of their recent uploads were also taken from the internet. I have tagged several for speedy deletion. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- @আফতাবুজ্জামান Done, copyvios deleted and user blocked for one week. Could be indefed if this behaviour persists. Darwin Ahoy! 14:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
User:名古屋グランパスファン
[edit]- 名古屋グランパスファン (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Through copyvio warnings, this user persistently upload same copyvio fire engine's images. Netora (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- The user claims they are the original contributor to both the website and here. We may want to look for someone who speaks ja to explain COM:CONSENT. GMGtalk 14:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Netora: next time, please inform the user on their talk page, that you reported them. I gave User final warning. Not only the fire engines were copied from the web, the other images from a website called https://www.homemate-research-ic.com. You can read japanese, please look at the other uploads. Thanks. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
NOHNIME
[edit]NOHNIME (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Exhibitionism-only account Dronebogus (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done Blocked, VOA, NOT HERE. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Mahaveer Indra
[edit]- User: Mahaveer Indra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: continued copyvios uploading like File:PMJDY Logo.png and File:Bhim app logo.svg after three blocks for doing so.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done Blocked indef. Other files were old, but File:Life Insurance Corporation of India logo.svg (from [4]) was uploaded on 18 September 2025. Yann (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Wycliffe Kipkirui
[edit]- User: Wycliffe Kipkirui (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
I am bringing this here because there is a file that was uploaded under a fraudulent license, but because an earlier version of it was deleted, administrator access is be needed to view the previously uploaded file and determine that the image was not properly licensed. This photo of Hassan Omar Hassan was uploaded on 4 October by Wycliffe Kipkirui with a date of creation on 4 October as "own work." The same day, an IP (likely loutsocking) responded to a query on Wycliffe Kipkirui's en-wiki talk page that I'm his personal photographer. so this is my work. and yes i took the picture today.
However, an identical photo was uploaded earlier this year by 1OutstandingSeason (talk · contribs) and deleted by Explicit on 25 September following a deletion discussion. Since the photo was identical, that would mean Wycliffe Kipkirui's statement and own work claim are invalid. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Yes, exactly the same file. I blocked 1OutstandingSeason and I will block Wycliffe as well. Also I deleted the file in question. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Chainsawbot
[edit]- User: Chainsawbot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Unauthorized bot. Malforming and making DRs without evidence.
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
New Socks TA-2023 (Report October 6, 2025)
[edit]Hello, new socks have been discovered for the TA-2023 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) account again.
Milad-OH (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Hossin hash (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Gek-234 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- Previous TA-2023 socks were previously restricted and globally blocked in the report dated May 22, 2024.
Hkooool (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
RrrHh123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Isabom (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Linclinc7373 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- Please request that the above socks, which are restricted in Persian Wikipedia due to their association with the TA-2023 account, be globally blocked. thanks
CaesarIran (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Yann: @Jeff G.: Hello dear friends, I have contacted you to investigate this issue.CaesarIran (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)