Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 13

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Beleiutz sockpuppet to block

Vasi Mihai (talk · contribs) is the latest sockpuppet of User:Beleiutz. As usual he is uploading copyright-infringing photos of his favourite Romanian celebrities here and then inserting them into articles on various Wikipedias. See Meta:Vandalism_reports#Beleiutz for further details. Please block the sockpuppet and nuke the uploads. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Krd 11:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Back again today as Georgiana Ene (talk · contribs). Another block please, at least until the global lock at Meta:Steward requests/Global has been processed? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Krd 11:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:Crybauti

I have indef-blocked on the spot Crybauti (talk · contribs) for abusing Commons for harrassment, as he has uploaded an attack-image File:Im a gold digger i love dicks,. i fuck for money.jpg, which shows a young woman, whom the uploader accused in the image-description as well as on his userpage User:Crybauti of "she will have sex with anyone who have money" etc. On his userpage he also identified her by name. I don't believe that any constructive contribution can be expected from this account. --Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Raysantos12

Please block Raysantos12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Block user Samèir_Vergara (talk · contribs) and his possible sockpuppet Shkcvj (talk · contribs)

The user indicated above (and possible his sockpuppet) uploaded several selfies and used in the unregistered user page Samer Vergara (speedly deleted) as personal album (vanity), clearly outside the Project scope. No other contributions than them. Already warned. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Samèir_Vergara is Stale. Actions, if any, will need to be based on behavior. (Although they are almost certainly the same given subject of the uploaded files.) Эlcobbola talk 22:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Blocked basing on behaviour: Shkcvj indefinitely and Samèir_Vergara for 2 weeks. Ankry (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Ukrainian People's Republic (non-official, 1917).svg

Full protection requested due to persistent revisions. This file is supposed to be yellow-over-blue. Fry1989 eh? 23:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. For one month. Ankry (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DanielithoMoya

Please block DanielithoMoya (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. 3 days for now. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Leucosticte (talk · contribs)

Re: block log

Could the contributor please be notified of their account block in accordance with Blocking policy, and an explanation be published either there or here as to how Wikimedia Commons user blocks are used in cases like this to implement English Wikipedia Arbcom decisions, without a public discussion or review on Wikimedia Commons? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Pinging blocking admin. — Revicomplaint? 10:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I undid this block since it is invalid. En-wiki arbcom doesn't have anything to say here at Commons. This user did nothing wrong here at Commons and he has not even been informed about this block. The blocking admin has not made any edits in the last five days and that's why I already unblocked this account. Keeping this unjustified block is wrong and this specific case has already been discussed here ones before. If someone wants to find consensus to block this editor, fine by me but in the meantime he should be allowd to edit and he must be able to defend himself. Natuur12 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw them somewhere being accused of being an advocate of paedophile. I suggest evidence is presented and used for the block or even a global LOCK. -- Rillke(q?) 21:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've alerted Leucosticte to your proposal. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you suggesting evidence be presented, rather than simply presenting it? Is this even the right forum for suggesting a global lock? Leucosticte (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to spend my spare time with something more useful and less with retarding in grey-zones. Also note the condition. You may rewrite the sentence as If evidence is presented (and I encourage seeking for it), … -- Rillke(q?) 06:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I contacted English Wikipedia Arbcom on 1 June 2014 enquiring about the en.wp block. I asked: "Can you please advise if Leucosticte[1] was indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia under the WP:CHILDPROTECT rationale." The response: "We cannot comment further on this block." Whilst it is assumed that the block was made because of an English Wikipedia policy, we can not block on this project because of something someone did on another project, much less so when information on the block is secretive, and there is no policy on this project, nor deference to another project.

The editor was also blocked (with a set timeframe) on Meta by @MZMcBride: . We discussed that block quite openly on #wikimedia-commons and the general feeling was CHILDPROTECT was only policy on English Wikipedia (and a couple of other projects). Attempts to implement it as policy on projects such as Commons and Meta have been unsuccessful; perhaps this is due to the wider community being involved in discussion and seeing flaws in the policy as was pass by fiat by Jimmy Wales on English Wikipedia. Editors should be blocked for the right reasons.

In 2012, we were met with the Beta M case; an editor who had been blocked on English Wikipedia for again "secretive" reasons, but the reasons became known elsewhere and on this project. I remember vividly that myself and @99of9: were both willing to block that editor at a specific date -- Beta M gave his DoB on one site and the prisons systems website sees prisoners/ex-prisoners year age change on their birthday -- we didn't get the opportunity to do that (although the year age did indeed change on his birthday -- I checked).

I raised the issue at the time at en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_99#Invitation_to_come_to_Commons_to_discuss_this and tried to discuss with @Jimbo Wales: and get him to come to Commons to discuss the potential Commons policy. Jimmy stated that en:WP:CHILDPROTECT is policy across all projects and then stated on Beta M, "If he's still not banned in 3 days time, I'll eat my words." A number of hours later, Beta M was globally locked as an office action, whilst discussion was still ongoing on this project. Still, this does not equate to the English Wikipedia policy being Commons policy, or even project-wide policy. It was likely done as an office action to prevent Jimmy eating his words. In the absence of something firm from the WMF, we should continue to discuss the policy here on Commons.

On a sidenote, in May last year the issue was raised at meta:User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection. Discussions were only going to take place with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and not with the general community. Until such time as a general discussion is opened up with input from all interested parties, when these issues come up they will surely continue as they did in 2012, and where I can see this case heading. russavia (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Leucosticte isn't a genuine pedophile, and as far as I'm aware, he hasn't engaged in the distribution or possession of CP. He just likes pushing the buttons of online communities and offline authorities. That's probably why he started the "my spouse's nudes" incident. Leucosticte is something of a "get oneself blocked / arrested" artist. He intentionally had himself arrested by threatening to kill the US President, just to prove that the US government would imprison someone for making empty threats. Leucosticte is pretty harmless and is pretty fun once he get to know him. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: ArbCom blocked Tisane / Leucosticte due to the threat to kill the US President, not for anything pedophilia-related. Here's an Email from SilkTork. As you can see, the Email doesn't mention pedophilia or the safety of children. It only mentions "legal threats" and "violent threats in real life" (a reference to the harmless threat to the President). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Really, Russavia? You, a bureaucrat, somebody supposed to set an example, are going to use a legitimate, good-faith admin action to score cheap political points against Jimmy Wales? I note that most of this discussion took place early this morning while I was asleep and that no effort was made to wait for my comments. Personally, I don't think Commons should be a safe harbour for people to advocate for kiddy porn, especially if they've been banned from a sister project for exactly the same thing. Now, for reasons that would be apparent to any sensible admin, that's not the sort of thing we like to shout about in block logs. The courteous thing would have been to wait for my response if the exact reasons for the block were unclear rather than unblock to make a point. Some of the participants in this thread should be ashamed of themselves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    Aside for clarification. Russavia is not a bureaucrat. The thread was opened by me as a simple request to follow Commons blocking policy, more than 36 hours ago, and Natuur12 only acted 11 hours after you were pinged, making a reasonable note that you had not been active for 5 days. I know nothing of the background of this case, neither do I wish to read assertions of criminal behaviour, unless they are on-topic for Commons. I shall have no comment to make on specific criminal allegations, and I believe the nature of the allegations already made, makes this a matter for WMF legal to assess if office actions are warranted, rather than uninsured Commons administrators making comments they may later have cause to regret. Fæ (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    @HJ_Mitchell: As I've explained to Russavia above, pedophilia doesn't have anything to do with why ArbCom banned Tisane. By the way, Russavia lost his bureaucrat rights last year. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    User:HJ Mitchell this isn't about me, but about your block. Any information I have provided above is a factual assessment of policies on another project and how they relate to this project both in the past, and presently; i.e. English Wikipedia policy ≠ Commons/Meta/other project policy. I am in much the same boat as you as it relates to paedophiles on Commons (or in fact, in society at large), but we need to block with Commons policy in mind. If you want COM:CHILDPROTECT to become policy on this project interested parties need to make it so. Best to leave it in the hands of the WMF and let them take responsibility for these actions. russavia (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Michael, we need to have a paedophilia advocate blocked on this project under en:WP:CHILDPROTECT. Leucosticte (talk · contribs) is the editor in question, who is en:Special:Contributions/Tisane. - russavia (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)"
"As to en:WP:CHILDPROTECT, you are aware that this is not just en.wp policy, but it is actually global policy? - russavia (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)"
"Whilst it is assumed that the block was made because of an English Wikipedia policy, we can not block on this project because of something someone did on another project, much less so when information on the block is secretive, and there is no policy on this project, nor deference to another project."
" We discussed that block quite openly on #wikimedia-commons and the general feeling was CHILDPROTECT was only policy on English Wikipedia (and a couple of other projects). Attempts to implement it as policy on projects such as Commons and Meta have been unsuccessful. - russavia (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)"
Hope Russavia changed his mind after the so stated #wikimedia-commons discussion. Otherwise his comments here and on Michael's talk page are mutually contradicting and giving an impression that all his interest is to pull in Jimmy's name and play cheap game in every possible occasions. :) Jee 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Russavia's motivations are off topic, I suggest you email him or join him on IRC if you want to chat. The account in question has been unblocked, if an administrator wishes to block, it would be jolly nice for existing policy to be seen to be followed without needing direction from the English Wikipedia Arbcom based on secret information. There are simple ways of doing this without bringing off-wiki matters on-wiki. If no action is being taken by Commons administrators here, then I suggest this thread is closed as it effectively answered my request. Any reader of this text is free to email WMF legal if they have pertinent information for their attention. --Fæ (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not speedy close this as everything is off topic since this which was my initial complaint. I don't care IRC, ArbCom or useless discussions as far as it is not affecting Commons. Jee 16:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So far as I am aware there have been no developments since my warning to Leucosticte (talk · contribs) on his talk page on 26th May. If any new evidence has come to light since then of activities that impact Wikimedia Commons anyone is free to say so, either here or privately by email if need be. A block - with reasons unstated - by English Wikipedia's Arbcom is not in my view in itself enough for us to enact a block on Commons, but if there is evidence relating to Commons that could be shared confidentially, eg with crats here, the situation might be different. If there is evidence supporting a global lock, that would be a matter for the WMF to deal with by Office Action. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

True. Arbcom alone is not the enough to block on Commons. As soon as there is the possibility that our project here could be affected a preventive block certainly is on order. I think this user is asking for pitty. Second thought: He might just have too much time on his hands and entertains himself by disrupting other wikis. On Commons I can't see anything that would justify a block. That might change over time, tho. IMHO: Speedy close --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User wants his user page to be protected

Hi! User:Zunter asked if someone could protect his user page, so that non-registered users can't edit it. Not sure what is a policy regarding protects of user pages here, but just reporting here in case you can protect it. Thanks. --Stryn (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Kiitoksia. --Zunter (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Cluebot10 is in violation of username policy and possible copyright violation. The user has uploaded multiple images with misleading file names. Moreover, this is a suspected sock account of an already blocked user on English Wikipedia. Amartyabag (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Softblocked --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Sockmaster and other puppets blocked as well. See CU --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

David Horvitz

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Images should be dealt on their own merit: any suspicion of copyvio should be deleted. Accounts used for abuse should be blocked. Other than that, no useful arguments are coming from this discussion. Requests for deletion with detailed and useful arguments welcome.

I'd just like to notify the Commons of the discussion going on at w:WP:ANI#David Horvitz regarding the photographer who was previously blocked on the Wikimedia Commons as User:Albianmoonlight, and was discovered to be socking and using the Commons as his own personal gallery and art installation. Checkuser has found he came back and in greater quantity. I think it is in the Commons' best interest to ban Mr. Horvitz and his photography for the large scale and multiple project disruption he has laid in his wake.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads deleted, socks and master blocked, stale accounts tagged as socks. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
He appears to have a new account in User:Nowa at en.wp.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Nowa (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) {{Possible}} No uploads Horovitz photos so far. CU needed to confirm, account created in 2007. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It's come up that Nowa is another individual named "David Horvitz" who is simply being impossible in the discussions on en.wp and locally.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

He came back as Myavocadoisonlyripeincalifornia (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (locally and en.wp) and Morninginnosun (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (en.wp at least).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. The sock (Myavocadoisonlyripeincalifornia) was abused to reupload a previously deleted file). --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the consensus established in the discussion HERE, David Horvitz is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. Tiptoety talk --WPPilot (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's more images of same uploader but different uploader name Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Undoingpropertie. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. Tiptoety talk 19:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
One more set of uploads, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alt nat gal.JPG - amazingly kept the last time it was nominated, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neue Wache Berlin.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emmen detail.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bananas in plastic container.JPG, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Direction to usa.JPG. This time the account name is Davidhorvitz. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Another upload showing art by David Horwitz, whom we all know is living. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Watercolor Shoplifting series (November 5, 2011. Stockholm, Sweden. American to European Outlet Converter, Pomegranate, Persimmon.).jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@WPPilot: Please note that English Wikipedia is NOT Commons, and English Wikipedia ban has nothing on Commons. — Revicomplaint? 07:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
If someone uses Wikimedia servers just for it's own purpose of self-promotion then a block is justified. If this person continues to use socks to misuse Wikimedia servers a ban is more than justified. --Denniss (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hym411: That does not prohibit my bringing to the attention of the board the facts regarding issues at hand as a FYI. The continued disruption that user has caused and the continued disruption that user:Ellin Beltz has discovered IMHO would warrant consideration of a Ban from Commons as well. Just my two cents. --WPPilot (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm torn on what to do here. David Horvitz is, at least on English Wikipedia, notable and there is a legitimate requirement to host images created by him somewhere within the WMF-sphere. If he chooses to release his images under a free licence, logic dictates those images are hosted on Commons. I also see someone who has trampled over the norms expected by this community and has seemingly complete disregard for the mission and goals of both Wikimedia Commons and its sister site Wikipedia, something that cannot go unnoticed and which does require a degree of prevention to stop further unacceptable behaviour out of step with long standing community norms. I'd be inclined to set some very specific conditions concerning his continued use of Commons, such as a restriction to one account, clearly labelled (perhaps User:David Horvitz), periodical reviews of his uploads and automatic deletion of anything uploaded by a sockpuppet. The other option (which I'm reluctant to suggest, but will) is a siteban, and if David does wish to keep submitting work to Commons, he does so by forwarding his work to OTRS where it can be uploaded by an uninvolved user, and then subject to periodical review. Nick (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: I think an instruction to use only a single account, and a reminder of the "educational" scope of Commons might be worth a try. Some of his imagery uploaded years ago is out of scope, but I am seeing plenty of inscope imagery being uploaded since. I think a ban might be a bit quick and harsh at this point in time. russavia (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel I have to pipe in here. Firstly, can we all come back from the brink of mass hysteria. Some of the reasoning for deletion of this uploaders images borders on ridiculousness. Having looked at some of the images that have been previously deleted, sure they should probably have been deleted. If they didn't include the person in the photo, they would be in scope. But then I see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neue Wache Berlin.png, and User:Binksternet wants to delete it based upon who the uploader is, rather than looking at it as an image of this monument with a wreath in front. This is bordering on sheer idiocy, and we should leave that type of thing for en.wp, not here on Commons. We need to remember that Commons is a repository of freely licenced media which can be used by anyone for any educational purpose -- not just Wikipedia. Let's look at this issue objectively rather than a hysterical rush to delete possibly useful content based purely on who created/uploaded it. russavia (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Just an additional note. The photo of the memorial in Berlin is in use here. Plus some other sites in a cropped state. This image complies with our mission to provide freely licenced content for use by anyone for any purpose. It would be great if people would look at things such as this in future too. The image here could be cropped to exclude the person, although it should be uploaded as a new image. russavia (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

For the memorial image in Berlin, we have other photos of this same statue, and there is no proof that this small image of low resolution was even created by Horwitz as both his hands are in his pockets and there is no metadata, it could even be a photo-montage. I think under COM:PRP that all uploads by this artist who has published bragging about his disruptions of the wiki-family of projects should be removed as suspect. The uploader obviously understands the system and chooses to ignore the point. I do not agree that with the judgemental remark that editors here are on "mass hysteria" brink or any of the other shots tossed around above (e.g. "sheer idiocy"). It would be of great benefit to discuss only the topic at hand, not personal opinions of others. We are all here to collectively come to some sort of consensus on what to do with a recognized sockpuppet who has uploaded masses of images deliberately to disrupt. I really don't think that the "Beach Buem" series was Horwitz' own photography, as in many pictures he was dozens of meters from the camera, and I'm not sure this memorial photo is really his own work either, particularly as it is totally lacking metadata, small in size and resolution and no guarantee he was ever even there in person. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You raise a number of important points:
  • "all uploads by this artist who has published bragging about his disruptions of the wiki-family of projects should be removed as suspect." (emphasis added) I believe the “suspect” you are referring to relative to the images is suspect of copyright violations. Correct?
  • "I really don't think that the "Beach Buem" series was Horwitz' own photography" These photographs have been displayed in numerous art galleries as works by David Horvitz. Unless someone else comes forward claiming they own the copyright, I believe the presumption has to be that they are his property, no matter who actually took the photograph.
  • "I think under COM:PRP that all uploads by this artist who has published bragging about his disruptions of the wiki-family of projects should be removed as suspect." COM:PRP reads: “The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted.” (emphasis added) I read this to mean that the freedom of each individual files should be judged independently. Furthermore, I don't believe that arguing from a negative (e.g. he couldn't have taken them) constitutes “significant doubt” as to who the copyright owner is. I have reviewed quite a few of these images over the past few weeks and have yet to find one that is attributed to another person.--Nowa (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: The images in his book “Sad, Depressed People” were “illegally sourced stock images”.--Nowa (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I, unfortunately, have to stand by my comments of hysteria and idiocy. Please don't get suckered into the hysteria, because those who are all hysterical over this issue (User:Ryulong and User:Binksternet) are not only hysterical but acting in a most idiotic way.

Let's look at an example shall we. This DR was started on the basis purely on the fact of the person who uploaded it. User:Ryulong stated: "Disruption by David Horvitz to have his art project on the Wikimedia Commons. See other related requests." This is the file in question. I don't see it as disruptive at all. I see it as a photograph of a nude man standing on Whale Beach in Lake Tahoe. User:Binksternet then comes along and states: "This guys is a sockpuppeter who has disrupted Commons for years. All of his uploads should be deleted." This is where it cross the line from idiocy into, sorry to say, disruptive idiocy. Because no sooner did Binksternet say we should delete the person's uploads, and he goes and uploads File:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.jpg. So the scope of the image was NEVER in doubt. The copyright of the image was NEVER in doubt. The image was essentially delete purely because of who uploaded it. This is NOT what Commons is about. To make this case an even better example, en:Whale Beach (Nevada) is a notably beach on Lake Tahoe, and it is known as a nudist beach! So we have essentially deleted an image of a nude man standing on a notable nude beach in Lake Tahoe, the only example we have of this beach, not because of anything else but who uploaded it. And to make matters worse, Binksternet has uploaded it with wrong licencing. The original image was uploaded as GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (after licence migration) -- Binksternet has uploaded it as CC-BY-2.5. HE needs to fix the licencing. I have a big problem in editors opining to delete materials because of who created it, and then turn around and upload the material anyway. This is utter and total lunacy.

Please do not get suckered in this Ellin, let's look at things objectively on this project. Leave the hysterical idiocy for English Wikipedia. I will be asking Hedwig to undelete this file, or if they have any objections to its undeletion, based upon what I have stated above. russavia (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I make one correction to the above. File:A Nudist at Whale Beach Lake Tahoe.JPG is another photo of nudism at the beach. But the one uploaded and now deleted might be a better image for some people to use as it gives a wider overview of the beach, and the guys arse isn't front and center in the image. russavia (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, if Mr. Horvitz had uploaded his entire "Beach Buem" series under his own name (or under a single username), described them as part of an artistic series shot by ___(full name of real photographer)___ including their OTRS, and categorized them in a gallery of "Images of Public Access Show" categorized perhaps below "Category:David Horvitz", I'd be arguing to keep each and every one of them as properly uploaded, described and categorized art freely licensed by the artist/photographer (hence the OTRS plus the uploader statement). However, that is not what happened. Multiple socks uploaded a pile of images - sometimes after they'd formerly been deleted after discussion - and the disruption caused by bend/break/twist/ignoring the rules was publicly documented. With all respect, I personally do not think that Binksternet should have uploaded an image claimed to be by Horwitz without OTRS since the copyright status is uncertain (Mr. Horwitz was shown off center left in the original image - too far from camera to have pushed the button). I have refrained from uploading a new version of the Berlin statue for the same reason - I am not convinced that Mr. Horwitz is the photographer - and for that image, I am unsure that it's not a photo-montage (see lack of metadata). That Mr. Horwitz owns or claims ownership of the images really has nothing to do with the actual copyright which remains with the photographer except in rare cases. I could, for example, empty my scrapbook of photos by others onto Commons claiming they're an "art project" - that obviously wouldn't give me copyright to any of the images. That Mr. Horwitz has chosen to use socks, provide poor descriptions, locations, dates, metadata and so on for a group of technically ok, but nothing spectacular photographs and then crow about it in the media is where my COM:PRP hops in. He's used other non-free images in his work, there's no proof any of this is his work, it was uploaded by multiple users, and I think it should go and his sock-drawer be permanently closed leaving the account "Davidhorwitz" open. I am not involved in any hysteria here or at Wikipedia - nor do I think the crossover Wiki=editors are either. I think that at root the problem here is deliberate disruption and rule-breaking. Neither of those should be rewarded in any way lest they provide targets to others. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Ellin. In the judicial system, people that are deemed as disruptive often are listed as Vexatious Litigants, and special requirement's are set in place to allow them to participate in the judicial system, I.E. someone that is deemed "Vexatious" is required to ask permission from the court to file just about anything. Here we seem to have a Vexatious manipulator of the site, and while IANAL & TINLA, this situation seems to me similar in form and function and we should handle this user in the same manner. --WPPilot (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
"...copyright which remains with the photographer except in rare cases. " Copyrights are routinely transferred by assignment of ownership.--Nowa (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
"...too far from camera to have pushed the button" Wireless remote triggers with 100 m range are readily available--Nowa (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that your article was in 2012 several years after the photos in question were made. The photos were all blurry, as if held by hand. To use a wireless remote, walk 25 or more feet away, still manage to be in frame, and not use a tripod to prevent hand-held blurring exceeds my limits of credibility. It appears to me as if he had someone else take the picture (if his assertion that it is him, himself in each image is true); else he had someone else pose and then claimed the model was him. Either way, more confusion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We all need to stay mellow. There is no reason to be angry with each other, just because we are talking about a sock puppeteer and his socks. I think we all can agree that socks have to be blocked. Yes? Yes! Thank you all! Everybody had good arguments one way or another. There's some evidence that the photos in question can be useful. There's some evidence that the photos might not be (c) Horvitz. Nothing we can prove either way. The only important question is, do we allow Horvitz and socks/meat puppets to continue the way they do and keep all/some of the images on Commons? Instead of discussing this for another two weeks and then again next month, I suggest to vote. I'll prepare a vote page (with different outcomes of course) and will invite all participants of this discussion and use our new bullhorn feature to get a little more widespread community input. I'd like to close this discussion as soon as possible, before we all get hurt.

 Question Would a vote be acceptable? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed --WPPilot (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Info First draft here: User:Hedwig in Washington/Vote (Draft) DON'T vote yet! :-) Have a peek and tell me what you think. Or change is, it's a wiki after all! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Comment I think we confuse two things here which pertain to different policies. 1. What should we do with this account and his socks; 2. What should we do with the images which were uploaded, or would be uploaded if the account is not blocked. Point 1 releates to account and sock-puppet policy, point 2 releates to image policy. I am not sure what to do about this account is particular (I don't know the history), but we have plenty of images from blocked accounts. Why should we act differently here? I think these images should be dealt by on their own merit: are they in scope? are they under a suitable license and permission? In these 2 conditions are met without reasonable doubt, kept them; if not, delete. Beside, I am uncomfortable on a vote about a user: this could easily become a mob-lynching exercise. It also looks like a honey pot to attract trolls and the like. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 Comment "Socks have to be blocked" is very much an English Wikipedia point of view. No, socks do not have to be blocked. On Wikimedia Commons we do not care if someone is running 30 alternative accounts, unless they are misusing the accounts in some way. What should be assessed on this noticeboard is whether an assertion of misuse is supported by evidence and what minimal action needs to be taken by administrators to restore Commons to a productive environment. --Fæ (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked in here for a while, so forgive me for not responding. The issue was that David Horvitz was abusing the "you can upload anything to the Wikimedia Commons so long as it's got a free license" and then disrupting Wikipedia by making sure that the photo where he is nominally the subject in front of a landscape was in use as the main photograph of several articles on beaches, and several other photographs of his are locations where his body is somewhere in frame. Just look at File:Scottishbroom.jpg. He's standing in the god damn tree and this was in use on the Arabic Wikipedia's page on the plant, and probably dozens of other Wikipedias before that. And File:Emmen detail.jpg? A hand holding rocks purportedly from the location described. And File:Direction to usa.JPG being a photo of a piece of paper on a wall (without his body in frame for once) that was in use on the Telugu Wikipedia. David Horvitz's many photographs are of poor quality, of which there probably exist plenty of other images on the Wikimedia Commons in better quality, it is not clear who the subject of all these photographs is or if Horvitz even owns the rights to them, or if the accounts are even operated by him and can adequately provide the copyright details on the photographs.

If he wants to contribute to the Wikimedia Commons constructively with his work, then by all means let him. He should do it through the proper channels of a notable copyright holder. Until then, we should examine his various photographs as to whether or not they are in scope or can even be used for educational purposes, while also acknowleding his full intent to disrupt for the sake of art by having some unidentified person (allegedly himself) in the frame of all of these photos.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue of adding images to English Wikipedia articles is not one to resolve here, we do not dictate policies for other projects. The samples I have looked at appear within scope for Commons to host, if there are issues to discuss on this noticeboard, I recommend they are restricted to Commons activities where administrators may be expected to consider action, rather than muddying the waters with off-wiki stuff. --Fæ (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that he's abusing the Commons and disrpting multiple language projects. A photo of himself hiding in a tree is not in the commons scope.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Separate the two issues. If there are images you would like to have removed as out of scope, then raise deletion requests for them, this is not an AN/B issue. If they are disrupting Commons, then provide the evidence of where this is happening on Commons, this thread by itself, complaining about other projects where the incident has already been dealt with, does not really count. Someone uploading photographs to Commons when there is no particular legal or scope reason to remove them, is not disruption. --Fæ (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
So this person should be free to use the Commons to further his disruption of other websites? And abuse the Commons' system of disseminating images through the sister projects to have his work and art shown to the world simply because he knows people like lifting things directly from Wikipedia and the Commons?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Disruption on other websites is a matter for their local policies. Commons is not required by users in order to upload images to the English Wikipedia, so blocking contributing accounts here (that are not demonstrated to have disrupted this project) would not give the outcome you are looking for. As for "people like lifting things directly from Wikipedia and the Commons", that is actually a good thing, it is the reason this project exists, it is not the job of Commons administrators to police the internet, just ensure a non-hostile and productive environment on Commons so that contributors can fulfil the aims of this project. That does include hosting protest images, disturbing and disruptive photographs, and even images banned in some countries, where these do not contravene current U.S. and applicable international copyright law.
I count this as my third reply on this thread, I'm going to go away and focus on more productive stuff now. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
But he has abused this fact to gain exposure. His California beach series and the resulting drama is what has allegedly given him notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Allowing this type of behavior could well establish a "system" that others will most certainly follow, to obtain notoriety. Horvitz's "shell game" is a clear manipulation of the system using sub standard contributions and making a game out of weaving them into EN as wellas other global Wiki's. If allowed it is just a matter of time before others use the "Horvitz System" of sock puppets and disruption of this community to create public exhibits for public review of his disruption by mocking this community. Like any community, it should be curtailed and prohibited, before that happens. Allowing his accounts to continue to upload anything is in part a lot like having the cat watch the hen house. This guy is a waste of time and everyone's energy in the end, throttle him down as User:Ellin Beltz mentions and restrict him to contributing under 1 account like everyone else, or expose the commons to more similar jokesters like him, he has exposed a loophole, lets just fix it. --WPPilot (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I hope for the sake of his artistry, he has moved on.--Nowa (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hope is for those that have lost all else, why should anyone rely on Hope to resolve this matter, that's simply not going to happen. --WPPilot (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@WPPilot: While hope is not needed, your argument doesn't help much. As was already said in this thread, if you think there is an issue with one or several file(s), create a deletion request with proper arguments. That would be much more helpful than the on-going discussion here. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Horvitz license question

I have a question about licensing. If a work like David's is uploaded to commons under ShareAlike 3.0, but then the work is deleted by the community, does the original ShareAlike license apply? For example, if I wanted to upload a derivative of one of David's deleted works, can I invoke the original ShareAlike license? (Yes, I know, don't reupload a deleted work. I'm just posing a hypothetical)--Nowa (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand, we've no idea whether those works are freely licensed. They all are uploaded from so many anonymous accounts. Since he is notable, we need an OTRS to confirm it is he himself uploading/granting the license. (Otherwise those works should be published somewhere else with a free license.) Jee 03:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)\
Good point, but my question was more about Commons policy than Horvitz per se. Is there a policy page that addresses this?--Nowa (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
General copyright questions for your intended uploads are best raised at Village pump/Copyright, this is not the right noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Trying to keep it simple. So instead of discussing further and instead of voting we just let the user problem itself as it is right now (since there are locks in place already) and focus on the images? Shall we start regular(!) deletion requests for the remaining photos? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes; I think. Making a DR and wait for OTRS for one or two week may enough (as Russavia did here). No permissions > delete all. If we get permission, then again we can review them individually to check whether each work meets COM:SCOPE. (BTW, note that Nowa is also blocked in EN for his over interest in this matter.) Jee 03:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the right thing to do. I think we can close this thread. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see this thread closed and ongoing drama discouraged. This should include deleting User:Ellin Beltz/Sock Drawer which includes a lot of off-Commons information, dating back over the past 3 years. Analysis of this type may be appropriate on the English Wikipedia, where sock hunting has become an obsessive blood sport to a minority of administrators, but I would not like to see this type of hostile analysis seen as acceptable or allowed to become a permanent record on this project. Pages of this type can only serve to ensure the target of the analysis is left in a position where it is almost impossible to reform to the benefit of the project. --Fæ (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The list I created is culled from materials readily available here and here and a look at the group of users who uploaded photos to Commons. I fail to see how culling information readily available to make it easier to see the magnitude of the issue is a problem. I have already stated that I think that a nominate user account (just one) should be maintained for future uploads. The chart shows an increase in user account creation over the past few years, and the shift from en:w to Commons in activity; both factoids of use to understanding the situation. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on this one, but I really feel that COM:PRP has to kick in and our concern for the feelings of single problem user become subordinate to the project goals and policies. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
No comment. Such a sockzoo. It looks like Horvitz is not here to build a database of freely usable media files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a fine line to tread. Commons CU pages are for a particular purpose, directed at evidence on Commons, then archived and invariably forgotten. Similarly en.wp SPI pages follow a well established working process, sticking to firm facts and en.wp evidence. Commons has no specific "rules" about this (guidelines being rejected in the past), but common-sense would indicate that the en.wp guideline for appropriate use of user pages points us to mellow good practices for Wikimedia Commons, it states "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." We have seen enough drama, let's draw it to a close in a "timely manner". If you feel you must keep extensive analysis of this type to support your personal interest in cross-project account use for this contributor, then please do so off-wiki and delete your user page. It can only serve to create a hostile environment where sock-hunting starts to look not very far away from witch-hunting.
This particular user may be seen as disruptive and problematic, some may see them as adding to our creative spectrum. Certainly they are neither "evil", nor irredeemable; so let's extend the possibility of becoming a positive contributor to this project, even if the relationship has broken down on other, less mellow, projects. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're continuing to go on about. I created an internal user page, which as you point out have no specific rules or guidelines and therefore cannot have been wrong except in your opinion. Therefore I cannot have broken anything but your opinions which you continue to toss around, even I removed the contents and sent it for speedy - before your last impassioned post. See the Red link above? Red links mean the page doesn't exist anymore. After your first demand that one of my User pages "should" be deleted, I did so. Did you not check before posting again on the same topic? I am very sorry you were again offended by me, my use of my user space, and/or my contributions to the project (as has happened before), but I also feel you're being unreasonably dramatic by continuing to demand that I remove an internal user page after it is already gone. Would it be possible for you to stop dramatically chewing on me without checking your facts in the future? Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice about what red links mean, though I have come across this before in my years of editing Wikimedia projects, having both made more contributions and edited for longer than your account apparently has. If you look at my edit comment (diff), you will notice I said " (ec) try again", the "ec" being a bit of jargon that regular Wikimedians use for "edit conflict", showing that I was attempting to save my comment at the same time as Steinsplitter made their edit to this page. The red link you refer to was created when your analysis page was deleted by Steinsplitter at 00:30AM (UK time), Steinsplitter made an edit here at 00:32AM, during which period I had already started to edit this page, I then resaved my comment at 00:49AM after it failed the first time. Considering how close these events were in time, it should come as no surprise to an editor as experienced as yourself that I had started to write my comment before the page was deleted.
Thanks for choosing to delete your user page from Commons. It would be nice if an outcome of this long thread were that you were to adapt the way you go about your work as a Commons administrator to become slightly more mellow; I am sure that running a public sock hunting campaign is not a rewarding or encouraging experience either for those who become the focus of your attention, or yourself.
I am sure this thread is ready to be closed now, having run its course. --Fæ (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:MH17 map-de.svg

A single editor changed (@Timk70: ) the time from 13:15 UTC to 14:15 UTC (which isn't possible and based on an incorrect time of 14:15 GMT used by Malaysia Airlines in its first statement, likely converted EEST to GMT/UTC without removing the Daylight Savings time), this has been discussed at multiple wikipedia's, most if not all are using 13:15 UTC (de.wiki has done so, see: ). @Gepickter Uhu: has reverted at least four times and @Asugar: , who I find rather strange to pop-up after warning Gepickter Uhu on the image talk for revert warring. The current version is against COM:OVERWRITE, the previous version needs to be restored and the file protected from further overwriting. Bidgee (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done This is a content issue. Two different versions/files can be uploaded and the local wikis can decide which they like to use. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So you guys should at least respect the latest version of the file uploader, not your private interpretation of the airline's press release. --Gepickter Uhu (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a "private interpretation". If there is a disagreement two different versions should be uploaded. See also COM:CROP --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked "David Horvitz" accounts

Resolved

Mycatwashurtbyabadcatyeshewas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is another account that I've discovered is another one operated by David Horvitz to upload more poor quality photographs where he is intentionally in frame. He admitted he uploaded a photo in use on the Henningsvaer page in this 2013 interview and the photo in question features the same figure as all other photos.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Waldorfhotelvancouver (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  too. Another art blog going "hey look at these Wikipedia pages David Horvitz posted photos for".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And more poor photos of a man looking at the horizon on a beach from Hongkongpoliceboat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Pseudepigrapha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Marked as possible socks of Albianmoonglight. All accounts stale = no blocks necessary. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Maxim Kaputin

Maxim Kaputin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Anti-Russian troll. Uploading attack images/copyvios. The last name Kaputin is a direct attack on Vladimir Putin. Kaput means broken or dead. Single purpose attack account. Rosario Berganza 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done User blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hadrajsaid

Hello,

Can someone block Hadrajsaid please ? See log (already blocked two times) and user talk (three copyvio since the last block). Thanks Bloody-libu (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 3 months. Yann (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Эрманарих

Please block Эрманарих (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  again for continuing to upload copyright violations with false authorship claims and repeatedly recreating them outside of process and against consensus. (Other recreated files include File:Voloshin.jpg, File:Coat of arms of Batavian Republic.svg and File:Photo of George Orwell.jpg.) While the reasons given for the previous blocks were edit warring rather than copyright violations, the user has been told repeatedly to stop uploading copyright violations. I gave them this "final" warning in March after they had uploaded about 20 copyright violations. That's been followed by half a dozen more, including ones uploaded after their latest block was lifted. Their only response so far has been to blank out the notifications from their user page. Also be on the lookout for sockpuppets, as the user has been known to abuse multiple accounts to evade previous blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked him indef. I could have blocked him for some weeks but than this would start all over again after his block expires. And well, most of his edits are not that productive. Even a block of 3 months didnot work to change his behaviour. Enough is enough Natuur12 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Please add a short-term block of 128.74.104.37. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Done, 2 weeks. Natuur12 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. And 128.74.124.146. Any more and we should probably start thinking about range blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Also done, I will consult a CU later today to check for collateral before I set a range block. Natuur12 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
And done, after consulting a CU I blocked the range for 1 month. Hope this helps. Natuur12 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Now circumventing the block using 193.200.150.137. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. That IP has previous block log with reason open proxy, but I was unsure, so I blocked for a week. If it is OP, feel free to extend block. — Revicomplaint? 09:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right; I didn't notice that. According to nslookup, that IP address belongs to an anonymizer service, so it should probably be set to a year. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Extended to a year. — Revicomplaint? 09:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

TheShaunster

Please block TheShaunster (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 09:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done for 2 weeks. — Revicomplaint? 09:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Joselynstar

Please block Joselynstar (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a recently expired one-month block. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

David Horvitz

Enofromubu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Theskullsofsealionscoveringawall (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  have uploaded photographs of an unknown subject staring looking away from the camera and towards the ocean, as previous sockpuppets have. Theskullsofsealionscoveringawall is a recent account, as well, so Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albianmoonlight should be updated and I do not know how.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked as socks. Asked for rerun of CU as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Northpoint777

Northpoint777 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  should be blocked for copyright violations, for continually uploading images of CD covers here to Commons. Looking at their talk page this dates back four years to June 2010 and one album in particular has been deleted at least seven times, according to the warnings left. Aspects (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned, files deleted. Yann (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for unprotection of discussion page of Macaca image

The page at File_talk:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg has been protected from anyone but admins for seven days. Reason is "no productive rant". No rants on page merely an interesting exchange of opinions. Yann, the editor, thinks the issue over copyright is done and dusted and therefore the page is full of "silly comments" by people who don't understand copyright law. Yet a proper reading of the discussion on the page would surely give disavow this view. My request to Yann is here: User_talk:Yann#Macaca_nigra_selfie.27s and his polite response. Obviously this would be better dealt with by someone without any previous display of partiality on the issue. Should it be decided to keep the protection please let me know what other steps I can take.

Of course the discussion may be closed off now anyway as people may not know even if the page is unprotected again. It is perhaps a little bit disturbing. Meerta (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose I think we have enough non productive comments about this issue, from people with very little understanding of copyright laws. Commons is not a forum to exchange opinons about these. Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg‎ is still available for useful comments and reports (media coverage, etc.). It is better not to spread these accross multiple talk pages. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
If that's the case, it might be best to put a clear notice on the top of each page directing people to where discussion is permitted, otherwise they are not going to know. Each image is a different image. I think it's absolutely the place for discussion of copyright, because that is exactly what the requests to remove the images from Wikipedia hinge on. I haven't seen great evidence that those commenting have immense knowledge of copyright in every relevant country, on either side, but even taking part in the discussion has taught me more, and if people read what I have posted, they may also learn something. It's also about the limits of Wikipedia and what they should and shouldn't be deciding, and when, and copyright is directly relevant here too - it's exactly what this is about. The big news outlets reporting on this, such as the BBC, aren't treating it as done and dusted, so why should Wikipedia be doing so? Meerta (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose While this image is in the news there is no chance of a well structured and reasoned discussion. WMF have declined to remove the image on copyright grounds so there is no urgency for us to look at it again so soon. LGA talkedits 10:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence contains a pretty big assumption and could come across as perhaps a little condescending to us ordinary editors who don't have the power to end discussions at will. Furthermore the discussion on the page was very well-reasoned on both sides, and better structured than one of the higher level discussions I have seen. Being "in the news" could bring greater diversity of views and has brought new input from UK and US experts. I don't think Wikipedia should see media attention as a negative thing - they should be accountable given their status in the world. I think the issue is urgent partly because it has brought Wikipedia into disrepute. Even if WMF have declined to use the image this is no grounds to use the power of an administrator to shut down a civilised discussion appropriate to the page. Furthermore the reason given was "rant", and there was no rant on the page. Meerta (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing this as  Not done. Nonsense discussion / trollig by ips. Protection is therefore OK. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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


Embrun5200

Embrun5200 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Multiple uploads are copyright-violations. Fabiano msg 20:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Church of Siduri

Resolved

I know that this is some more garbage found on en.wp but Wiki-proofer-and-tagger (talk · contribs) and Gilgamesh-for-the-World (talk · contribs) are both idealogical spammers for this "Church of Siduri" based on whatever that passage from the epic of gilgamesh is saying and should be dealt with summarily here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually sock and master (according to enwiki) Uploads nuked as (c)vios, master and 3 socks blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I-pon

Ni201512 (talk · contribs)&井上なおき (talk · contribs) is blocked user I-pon (talk · contribs).CentralAuth--Vigorous action (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done for Ni201512. Ping: Elcobbola for checking the sock. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I-pon hasn't edited since 2013, so a check would be Stale. However, that Ni201512 = 井上なおき = Naoinoue = Shiroikabe is Confirmed. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User Bayhaluk

Hello, can someone please block user Bayhaluk (talk · contribs) for uploading massive amounts of copyvio files related to a Turkish unmanned aircraft manufacturing company? User has also made tons of similar (now deleted) uploads at en.wikipedia, for example en:File:Bayraktar_at_take_off.jpg (see his/her en.wikipedia talk page) but never bothered to interact with anyone. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The source of uploaded files and the username are bit same, it's seem to me that the user related to the source site but we need confirmation via COM:OTRS. Anyways, User has been warned. @Bayhaluk: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish those files, please email our OTRS team to get the files restored. ~ Nahid Talk 12:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will wait a few days for an answer and then nominate the rest of the files for deletion. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)"

Dear NahidSultan (talk · contribs) and Ariadacapo (talk · contribs), please don't block me I am really kind of beginner on wiki, and miss some details of it. I am manager at the company and declare that others can use these pictures freely. I did send email to COM:OTRS for undulation and declarations that i own the copyright and there is no violation through my company mail address. Preceding unsigned text added by user Bayhaluk

Bayhaluk, thank you for your answer. We will need an OTRS ticket that covers all of the files you uploaded (which I have just categorized at Category:Kale-Baykar). If you need help, please ask on your talk page and I will reply. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Thank you NahidSultan for the prompt answer and action. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukelswegur

Please block Lukelswegur (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – vandalism only account here and on English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked him indef. Natuur12 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Talker36912

Talker36912 (talk · contribs). Copyvios. Repeated uploading of non-free images. --Juggler2005 (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 05:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexmenyar999

Alexmenyar999 (talk · contribs). Copyvios. Repeated uploading of non-free images. --Juggler2005 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Pooyankaz

Pooyankaz (talk · contribs). Copyvios. Repeated uploading of non-free images. --Juggler2005 (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Mariamorenobravo

Mariamorenobravo (talk · contribs). Copyvios. Repeated uploading of non-free images. --Juggler2005 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Formal warming given. Further copyvios will result in a block. INeverCry 21:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing reason

This category has been edited many times to wrongly create or list Deletion requests, and therefore, these editions has been reverted. This category page does need not to be edited in order to list these DRs, so, is possible to protect or semiprotect them, to prevent malformed DRs (or vandalical) editions in this category? --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 21:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, please protect Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing_subpage, Category:Deletion requests - No timestamp given and Category:Malformed deletion requests in the same way. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done INeverCry 18:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Kayisaywhat

Kayisaywhat (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 2 weeks. Natuur12 (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lovejsff

Lovejsff (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 2 weeks. Natuur12 (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sudiya

Sudiya (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - one week. Materialscientist (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Cyborg 3245x

Cyborg 3245x (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ibraimkg

Ibraimkg (talk · contribs). Copyvios after block. --Juggler2005 (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 2 weeks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:GiorgioGonsalez

GiorgioGonsalez (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. INeverCry 16:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Szlomo Lejb

Szlomo Lejb (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, and DW book cover images nuked. INeverCry 19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
INeverCry, what about these files: File:Ballady i romanse 01.JPG, File:Dzenniki gwiazdowe.JPG? Are they below the threshold of originality?--Juggler2005 (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Szlomo Lejb appealed the block and I, considering his other good contributions, granted him unblock after explaining, what not to do in the future. I warned him also, that any copyvio at future can result blocking again. Taivo (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:AkciaSo

AkciaSo (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for one month. Ankry (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Heubergen

I have indef-blocked the account Heubergen (talk · contribs) per the user's own expressed wish to do so.[1] --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Pooyankaz

Pooyankaz (talk · contribs). Copyvio after block. --Juggler2005 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 2 weeks, next time I will block him indef. Natuur12 (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:JD3rulo

JD3rulo (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. Begoon - talk 18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done User blocked for 1 week, copyvio upload deleted. INeverCry 18:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:CaPaSu93

CaPaSu93 (talk · contribs). He was blocked before, but he continues uploading the same copirighted file. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Next block should be indef. INeverCry 20:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:منتصر حبيب شراير

منتصر حبيب شراير (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Spooler

Spooler (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Juanjorel

Juanjorel (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for a week, copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Renandrade

Renandrade (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Vladimir123panda

Vladimir123panda (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 1 month and nukes most of his uploads. Natuur12 (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Эдита Ботезат

Эдита Ботезат (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 2 weeks. Natuur12 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal F.

Royal F. (talk · contribs), possible duck Lucamoreira (talk · contribs). Check details in Wiki-pt and Wiki-en. Fabiano msg 23:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked him indef. One of his uploads was almost the same as last time.. This time the image was in black and white. Obvious DUCK. Natuur12 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Lady nude

Hi, I think uploads by User:Lady nude need to be serviced as well as the account... --Achim (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Nuked and Blocked 1 week. Alan (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ambershine

The user Ambershine (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (very likelly a bot) is creating new pages (specially in Talk pages) with the same non-sense content. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - this seems to be a spambot. Natuur12 (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection of WLMTH2014 pages

Could you please semi-protect the following competition pages for three months? It is expected to have a very high traffic during the competition period which commenced today.

--taweethaも (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 02:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to include this page. Please semi-protect for three months too.

Thank you very much. --taweethaも (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Amirali joo

Amirali joo (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Celebritybusted01

Celebritybusted01 (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alberto Becerra

Alberto Becerra (talk · contribs), possible multiples copyvios. Check your contribuitions. Fabiano msg 21:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Files tagged / deleted and last warning left on user talk. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Samy144

Samy144 (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Snigdharsha

Snigdharsha (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 week. INeverCry 15:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kristiaan van Andrej

Kristiaan van Andrej (talk · contribs). Copyvio after block. --Juggler2005 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 2 weeks. I don't have the feeling that he checks Commons daily so I set the block length to two weeks to make sure he sees that he did something wrong. The next block will be indef. Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
He noticed the block and responsed [2]. --Juggler2005 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Not the responce I hoped for but at least he knows that people think that he did something wrong. 20:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:GalaxyM

GalaxyM (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 week. INeverCry 15:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Valerio1794

Valerio1794 (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 week. INeverCry 15:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Count_Tunin,_photo_was_taken_in_London_in_January_2011.png

Dear Administrators, could you please semi-protect the following page * [[3]], it is being attacked and vandalized. --Condado de Sealand (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Marcellenchmob

Marcellenchmob (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:B elena73

B elena73 (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:BSD, Template:BSD/layout and Template:BSD/en

For Template:BSD, Template:BSD/layout and Template:BSD/en, could you please change the protection state from full protection to semi-protection so that I can edit them ? Please see Template talk:BSD#Other requests. Thank you. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:William Nicholas Gomes

William Nicholas Gomes (talk · contribs). Repeated removing of speedy deletion tags from his files [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and removing of warnings from his talk page [10], [11], [12] . --Juggler2005 (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked. (admins: Feel free to eztend if you think my duration is too short.) — Revicomplaint? 12:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Anna Livya Padilha

Anna Livya Padilha (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:94.213.109.82

94.213.109.82 (talk · contribs) - I blocked this IP-adress some time ago for making personal attacks and now he/she continues at my talk page. Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. Yann (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Samba rubina

Samba rubina (talk · contribs). Copyvio after blocking. --Juggler2005 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Lifting protection?

Consensus about File:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg has been reached at File talk:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg. Could you unprotect it? (I know I am an admin who can unprotect, but I'm involved, so leaving to other admins...) — Revicomplaint? 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done (consensus) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Peakofice

Peakofice (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Tatianarezquita

Tatianarezquita (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Genium

Hi, I am using TBB to browse the Web from now. Could you please configure my account in order to be able to contribute in using Tor ? It was ok on wp.fr. I had the following messages:

msg1

Vous n'êtes pas autorisé(e) à modifier cette page, pour la raison suivante :

Votre adresse IP, 188.138.9.49, a été identifiée de façon automatique comme un nœud de sortie de Tor. La modification depuis Tor est bloquée pour éviter les abus. Pour plus d’information et d’instructions pour légitimer les utilisateurs, voyez la politique globale Pas de mandataire ouvert.

msg2

Vous n'êtes pas autorisé(e) à modifier cette page, pour la raison suivante :

Votre adresse IP, 94.23.30.53, a été identifiée de façon automatique comme un nœud de sortie de Tor. La modification depuis Tor est bloquée pour éviter les abus. Pour plus d’information et d’instructions pour légitimer les utilisateurs, voyez la politique globale Pas de mandataire ouvert.

Thanks genium ⟨✉⟩ 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why you use tor? If you don't use it to circumvent censorship you should check the internet connection preference of your browser and change it to no tor access for wikimedia pages. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Tizian 063.jpg

Various user keep insisting to overwrite File:Tizian 063.jpg, a featured picture on the English Wikipedia, with the same low resolution image. It would be nice if the image would be upload-protected. (Note that the previous two attempts were latter deleted.) Regards, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 12:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Janner88

   FDMS  4    11:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Nuked the images, but leaving block to other admins. — Revicomplaint? 12:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a sock (editpattern here and on enwiki), A CU should look into this. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
blocked Janner88 indef as an imposter. Natuur12 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Picanteria karol

Picanteria karol (talk · contribs). Advertising after block. --Juggler2005 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Markushar

Markushar (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And vandalism [13]. Stop him, please. --Juggler2005 (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ukraine location map.svg

Please protect this file as there is a Ukrainian user with Pro-Ukrainian views who is constantly POV pushing on this map. --Leftcry (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose You already raised this matter in several other places and was told that you must discuss on the talk page. It is you who is pushing pro-Russian POV in a matter where virtually the entire planet continues to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. Alternatively, you can upload your pro-Russian version as a separate file. Fry1989 eh? 16:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to push pro-Russian POV for asking for Crimea to be shown as a disputed region. I'm not asking for it to be represented as a part of Russia, but a disputed region which is NPOV. --Leftcry (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I've commented in favor of the disputed version on the image's talk. I would recommend we try and be as calm as possible about this. Accusations of POV pushing one way or another aren't helpful. Our interest should be neutrality. INeverCry 18:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
My position is not pro-Ukrainian. It is world-wide position, UN GA Resolution states that it is Ukrainian territory.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Convite_palestras_2014.png

Please protect File:Convite palestras 2014.png as it is being used on the editnotice at pt.wikipedia. Thnak you.Lechatjaune (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - please let me know when the file can be unprotected. Natuur12 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Celelilmenka

Nonsense DR. --Leyo 15:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked him indef since he is a cross wiki vandal. Natuur12 (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Beleiutz sock

Based on evidence from English Wikipedia (see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beleiutz), User:Adi Vancica is likely another sock of User:Beleiutz. I see the account's been busy here as well uploading images related to Romanian celebrities and the Disney shows they appear in. (Unusually, one of them is probably not a copyvio, though all the others have already been deleted as non-free.) —Psychonaut (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Psychonaut has long been obsessed with Beleiutz, see meta:Vandalism reports/Beleiutz, for more than a year every report, globally, has been filed by him. (That does not mean that he's wrong, but that caution should be exercised.)
  • Psychonaut enwiki user talk page shows a history of high ethnic conflict, which may be relevant here.
  • Adi Vancica has not been shown to be a sock of Beleiutz, talk page here only shows 1 deleted file. We are looking a a very low edit count user, new, with fairly common behaviors, not necessarily Beleiutz. Please unblock unless this user shows actual disruptive behavior here. If it happens that Adi Vancica is actually Beleiutz, the account will likely stop editing, having been suspected. Psychonaut is attempting, on meta, to use this block as evidence to set up for a global lock,[14] something that hasn't been done for any Beleiutz socks. --Abd (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. As Beleiutz is blocked on this wiki (though not banned anywhere), that's enough to justify a block. However, I am a bit concerned. Beleiutz has not edited since February 2013, so checkuser could not compare this editor with Adi Vancica directly, unless old checkuser evidence has been retained. Is that being done? Or was the identification with a more recent alleged sock? The other concern I have is hair-trigger checkuser. It used to be that an account had to be disruptive to allow checkuser. Adi Vancica has not been disruptive. The old policy allowed a kind of informal fresh start. If someone obsessively follows an account, looking for non-disruptive clues that a user is someone blocked, this can actually harm the wiki and the community. In any case, 'nuff said for now. Again, thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

deactivate my account

Hi, I want to deactivate my account. Thanks unsigned edit by Jayganesh 10:54, 16 September 2014‎

The only way we even notice you have an account is this edit. There is no simple way to "deactivate" your account. You have only a local account, no global one. You created it at 9:13 today. If you don't use the account, nobody will notice. If, later, someone else wants to create an account with the name, your account may interfere with that, but this can be handled then. Your account would be renamed, not "deactivated." It could be blocked so that it can't be used, that's possible, but normally this isn't done without good reason. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Unusual assistance needed :)

Hello guys, some of you may remember me as a former admin here, and when I still had these rights, I added a move-protection to my user talk page. I'd like to archive the old stuff there, and I like to keep the history in the archived talk page. So I'm wondering if some of you guys could do the following for me:

I'll take care of the rest then. Thank you, I'm excited to do something for Commons again :) --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 19:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Mumbai125km_Official_Poster.jpg

On the OTRS noticeboard, there is a request about File:Mumbai125km Official Poster.jpg by User:Rowdy Chander, which seems similar to an earlier request for File:Mumbai_125_KM_3D.jpg by blocked-user/suspected-sockpuppet and impersonator User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. Is this a continuation of that sock farm or just sheer coincidence? Thank you in advance. Green Giant (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's no coincidence. This is another one of TekkenJinKazama's sockpuppets. Blocked him indef. Natuur12 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Natuur12: The poster … ?    FDMS  4    19:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, wanted to check if the ticket was valid before I delete the poster. Ticket is likely false. Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Leew1974

User:Leew1974 has been uploading photos that are copyrighted. I've marked each of them with copyvio template. I think he should be blocked. Dunno if I post it in the right place? Dudek1337 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done The place is totally correct. At first I simply warned him. If he uploads next copyvio, then he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Now he uploaded next copyvio and now I block him for a week. Taivo (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Two unprotection requests

Please lift the sysop edit protection from File:Flag of Iran.svg and File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg, keeping upload protection if necessary. This allows anyone to edit the files' descriptions and categories. SiBr4 (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you request this per principle or in order to actually edit something on these two pages? --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to make specific edits to each description page myself. I'm considering to actually upload a new version of the first file, though I can request either the reupload or temporary full unprotection separately on the file talk page. SiBr4 (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you ready to do this now (today)? --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you're referring to the upload: yes, I could upload the file right now and write a description/talk page note after upload protection has been restored. SiBr4 (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done - Protection-level changed to registered users. --Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done uploading. SiBr4 (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume you are done with Flag of Iran. Will you also edit File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg? --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was requesting to remove the edit-protection from both files indefinitely and to re-add upload-protection after my upload. Is there a reason for only admins having the right to edit the file descriptions in these cases? SiBr4 (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
As I read from the earlier protection-rationale, there had been quite some edit-warring and both files are heavily in use. In such a scenario, full-protection is saver. --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I know about the edit warring – I was involved in the Isle of Man one – though in both cases they were upload wars and further edit warring on the description page seems unlikely to happen. I've now made the change to the other page as well.
A different request, can File:Flag of Spain.svg please be temporarily unprotected in the same way? I made an edit request for a reupload on that file's talk page some time ago which isn't fulfilled yet. SiBr4 (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done for File:Flag of Spain.svg; re-protected Flag of Iran. --Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Done; thanks for all. SiBr4 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
All 3 files re-protected now. --Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Fenixceleste

Please block Fenixceleste (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and 2 previous blocks. See also (e.g.) Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fenixceleste and especially this recent comment. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked him indef. Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Krivyk

Please block Krivyk (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations with false authorship claims in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 1 month. Next block will be indef. Natuur12 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Hgtechtaps

Hgtechtaps (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 3 days. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Nego.Blus2

Nego.Blus2 (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 21:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Juliane Nava (talk · contribs), sockpuppet of User:Eiji Mendoza

This user (after two blocks) still doing vandalical deletion requests, under a third account. See this archived report. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. INeverCry 03:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Mateus SBT (talk · contribs)

This user is a likely duck Mateus Televisa, blocked on Wikipedia-pt by use of multiple accounts. Loading images with own false statement of work. Fabiano msg 00:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked 1 week and nuked. Alan (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Samervergara22122 (talk · contribs), obvious sockpuppet of Samèir Vergara (talk · contribs)

This user (previously blocked), still uploading outside the project scope (and possible copyvio) files. Please block and nuke his uploads. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked, all files nuked. Yann (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Anca7

Anca7 (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a month. INeverCry 07:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FrankDesignRD

Please block FrankDesignRD (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 1 month. Natuur12 (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Tlaxbla

Tlaxbla (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Tanbe2014

Tanbe2014 (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Garbera levente

Hello,

My name is Andras Malatinszky, I'm an administrator on huwiki. I'm writing to you about User:Garbera levente who has been permanently blocked from huwiki for repeated indiscriminate personal attacks using foul language and for sockpuppetry. The block was implemented by hu:user:Pallerti, and Garbera levente -- presumably in retaliation -- has now defaced a number of Commons talk pages (belonging to Hungarian-speaking users) with Hungarian-language messages berating Pallerti in foul Hungarian. He has also replaced the Category:Earth page with a Hungarian-language message berating Pallerti in the kind of language I would not want my children to hear. Please block this guy per your usual policy.

Thanks,

--Malatinszky (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef and revisions hidden. INeverCry 20:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Samat (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Much obliged. --Malatinszky (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You're both welcome. INeverCry 23:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mumbai again

User:Derevation smells like a flickrwashing User:TekkenJinKazama sock to me. See /Archive 13#File:Mumbai125km_Official_Poster.jpg.    FDMS  4    14:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - at least he found out about fair use.... Natuur12 (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Mateus Manoela (talk · contribs)

Possible duck of Mateus SBT (talk · contribs). Fabiano msg 22:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked him indef. Natuur12 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've also located the following socks (now blocked): Rafael Mateus (talk · contribs), Mateus Televisa (talk · contribs), Mateus Rosario (talk · contribs), and Mateus Sales (talk · contribs). Tiptoety talk 02:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SexmanTanzil bajwa (talk · contribs)

Just for the record: I've indef'd this account as an obvious sockpuppet of indef-blocked en:User:Tanzil bajwa sexman and of User:Erotic tanzil bajwa. Both accounts on Commons have uploaded identical promotional images. --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record: yesterday I blocked Tanzil bajwa sexman (talk · contribs) and Sexual tanzil bajwa (talk · contribs). Taivo (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Syukur

This user has been uploading a large number of copyvios despite several requests to not do so. Green Giant (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Off for a month. --Denniss (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

103.244.189.186

See Special:Contributions/103.244.189.186 Jee 14:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. It is an interwiki action, stewards notified. Ankry (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RabeaMalah

Please block RabeaMalah (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and two previous blocks. Also please delete the last two revisions of File:Egyptian Air Force UH-60 Blackhawk.JPG, as they not only violate COM:OVERWRITE, but they are also copyright violations, grabbed from http://www.arabic-military.com/t48088p810-topic#593056 and http://defense-arab.com/vb/threads/74205/#post-959862. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Andrewright

Andrewright (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Uploads nuked, user blocked. INeverCry 07:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BRIAN JOSUE VAZQUEZ still uploading files

The user BRIAN JOSUE VAZQUEZ (talk · contribs) still uploading outside the project scope files, ignoring the several warnings and 3 opened DRs. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. INeverCry 23:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Николай Николаевич Николаев

Николай Николаевич Николаев (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 11:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

MarkZueus

Same issue as last time. Looks like this had no effect at all. Time for another block. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Samymit470

Obvious sockpuppet of Informatica470. Please block the sockpuppet indefinitely and reset the duration of the block for the sockpuppeteer. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, Indef + 1 month for master. --Denniss (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:JuanUG

JuanUG (talk · contribs). Copyvio after "final warning". --Juggler2005 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map unnecessarily protected

User:Ankry has blocked anyone from making changes to the same-sex marriage map at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. This protection is unwarranted. The state of marriage law in the U.S. is in constant flux this week, and that is why so many changes are being made. There is no edit-warring going on. It's not as if people are vandalizing the map; they are making good-faith edits. In the last few minutes, Nevada achieved marriage equality and nobody is able to change the map because all changes are blocked. See https://twitter.com/AFER/status/519934851483721730, https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/519933687119761408. The community of users who regularly edit the map has been doing just fine without an outside administrator coming in to "protect" the map. Tinmanic (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. For the first time, the highest legal court in the country has cleared the way for same-sex marriages in multiple states; this is a week of unprecedented change for the map and the worst possible timing for protection. Dralwik (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to second this protestation. There was a brief tug of war over the status of the image that lasted from approximately 20:30 to 21:30 yesterday but that was resolved without the need for protection. This is a rapidly evolving topic and the file protection unnecessarily prevents interested editors in maintaining the current status of the image. Shereth (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I fully support the protest. Yes, it's true that you generally do not see an image change this much, but the events that are going on mandate those changes. Swifty819 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I "fifth" this. There was an edit war. I justly reported one of the edit-warriors (Prcc27) (and they reported Rreagan007), and now instead of punishing the edit-warriors everyone is punished. This is a case of an admin taking uninformed actions. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked. But please, made changes that are officially confirmed and will not need to be reverted in a day or two. Twenty versions per day is definitely too many. Ankry (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ankry, you are still not understanding, US law on same-sex marriage is currently highly in flux. The map will be changing back and forth for a couple weeks now due to recent inactions by the Supreme Court of the United States. Standard order currently does not apply. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Thegreyanomaly: I DO understand. But I doubt that every unconfirmed message from Twitter should be reflected in this file at once. What is worth information that is subject to change in five minutes? Ankry (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Chris Geidner (whose tweets I've cited) is one of the most reliable marriage equality journalists out there. The information he and others provide is not "unconfirmed." The facts are just changing quickly. Last night, the Ninth Circuit cleared the way for marriage in Idaho and Nevada. But late last night or early this morning, Idaho moved for a stay to block that ruling. This morning, Justice Kennedy issued a stay. The stay applied to Idaho and Nevada. But this afternoon, Kennedy clarified that the stay did not apply to Nevada, only to Idaho. See what I mean? Many of us are following this issue incredibly closely, including all the twists and turns along the way. I don't see what harm it does to let people update the map as the facts change. Thank you for removing the protection. Tinmanic (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear of the unblocking. We are still working on consensus regarding Nevada (right now waiting on licenses being distributed before changing it's color). Thanks for understanding. Ghal416 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Icon no license.svg

Might be a good idea to protect this heavily used file to keep Hikari368 and similarly confused users from messing with it. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Austria-Hungary (1869-1918).svg

Once again I am asking this file be permanently protected from editing. The alternative versions that keeps getting reverted to is available under File:Civil ensign of Austria-Hungary (1869-1918).svg. This dispute has been discussed several times, the file's edit history has been cleaned up several times, and the consensus was that both versions can coexist. Sadly, every few months there's someone reverting the file, it must stop. Fry1989 eh? 22:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 22:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from user:El Show Debe Continuar

The user El Show Debe Continuar (talk · contribs), still doing vandalical editions and removing warnings. Page(s) created by him already deleted. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. INeverCry 03:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:A.bre.clare.

A.bre.clare. (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 07:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Shahidssp

Shahidssp (talk · contribs). Uploading personal photos after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Final warning sent. Hopefully he will understand. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Lisandro savalio

Lisandro savalio (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:46.174.26.234

Please react to the acts of IP User:46.174.26.234, who deleted discussion post on his discussion site calling it as a "spam". There is no talk with him, no responses from him, and additionally he deletes anew the other users' notices. Lowdown (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

3 months --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Eric850130

Eric850130 (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Erteza

Please block Erteza (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload a large number of blatant copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. This is ongoing as we speak, so the faster response, the better. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Yann for 1 month. Green Giant (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Página principal/corpo or User:Rodrigo Padula

Hello I need a protection on this page, or a block on the user. This is a template used on the pt version of the Main Page, the design was discussed here, and as you can see the only issues discussed on the first proposal was blank spaces.

That in mind, this individual, hired by the WMF to the Brazilian Programme, now are trying to impose a disclosure on the main page of one activity that he was the only one that participated, because when he negotiated that, he only guarantee his ticket, not for the community, or others. We even do not know how much money was spent on that.

He came to my talk page, trying to convince me to do approve this propaganda [16], and when he do not reached me, he wrote in the pt Village Pump, and suddenly wp-pt users that writes there once in a blue moon (and always trying to screw things that I do) appeared, together, "voted" and "approved" the self-promotion. Sounds fishy...

I thought, Ok, I'm not gonna enter on this, let it go... But, he did not change the Página principal including the disclose in appropriate place, he simply created another box, that screw all the scheme of the Main Page, creating a huge blank space... I reverted and wrote on the summary why [17], he reverted my edition, tried some dirty politics; I reverted again, but this time I wrote the reason at his talk page [18], and wrote in the summary again [19], he ignored that, reverted again, and he start to say that I'm the problem and blablabla...

This is not the first time that he tried to self-promote or promote his activity [20], and another edition war... and his is not a community member, the off-line community, that he was very close, turned away from him, because some attitudes, as trying to pit volunteers against each other, and the Brazilian Programme was discontinued.

My fear is that even when this event ends, tomorrow (12 oct), this continues in the pt Main Page, without the possibility to change... It was a event did by the WMF, without a volunteer participation, I see no reason to use the pt Main Page to show this waste of money, screwing the design, for I do not know how long.

I'm tired, I'm the only one doing maintenance in pt (and "pt-br") pages, and I don't want to handle with this alone, again. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Morgenfugl

Please block Morgenfugl (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings (including a final). Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 3 days. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Mateus RBD (talk · contribs)

Mateus RBD (talk · contribs), duck Mateus Manoela (talk · contribs) and Mateus SBT (talk · contribs). Please, delete imagens this user. Fabiano msg 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked indef for copyvios and abusing multiple accounts. Yann (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:DeepBaneAlexis

DeepBaneAlexis (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Help:Nominate for deletion nominated for deletion

This help page has been nominated for deletion by mistake three times. So, I suggets to semiprotect this and these kind of pages to avoid these editions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As of now, the Nominate-For-Deletion gadget will not show the link in case it finds the page is not editable by the current user. Users could expect to see the link the help page advertises on that page and it could be too confusing to hide it there; at least the tutorial will cease to work for non-autoconfirmed users on that page. -- Rillke(q?)
Could we use a subpage, so that newbies do not nominate this page by inadvertence? Regards, Yann (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What kind of subpage do we talk about? Can you explain your idea a little more extensively so I can gasp it? -- Rillke(q?) 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the gadget itself should abort nominating this particular page for deletion. -- Rillke(q?) 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Same sex marriage article is not protected so map shouldn't be either

This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state is not protected, but the map within it, IS protected, which makes no sense. The situation is fluid with same sex marriage and idaho needs to be changed to dark blue but even a logged in user such as me is not allowed to make the simple edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeal17thamendment (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Commons is not Wikipedia. You are a new user on Commons.[21] File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg is semi-protected (edit and move, expires tomorrow) and I think that is appropriate. --23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jesagui

Jesagui (talk · contribs). Copyvios after block. --Juggler2005 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Uploads deleted, blocked him indef. I speedy deleted the DR's since the cnagne that those files are okay is less than zero. Thank you for your work. Natuur12 (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Spammer

Spam-only account. Improper username (promotional). (diff).—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Bocked. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

DeglisRdgz

Please block DeglisRdgz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Off for a week. Please monitor him so if he restarts uploading copyvios the next ban will be a month. --Denniss (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Unprotection a abusive protection at Página Principal

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

Closing this unprotection request as  Not done. Protection remains to prevent edit warring. @Rodrigo.Argenton: Please stop edit-warring and personally attacking other editors. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey dudes, could you unprotect Página Principal, the page was very stable since July, and one I Don't Know How Sysop, protected the page using "Counter-productive edit warring" as argument in a stable page o.O, putting a outdated version that make no sense, since the Wiki Loves Earth already over for mouths...

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No answers???? So, if a malicious administrator performs a bad action, it's ok, but if a "normal" volunteer does, he gonna burn in hell as soon as possible. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If the only consequence of your personal attacks on Beria (and yes, calling someone "I Don't Know How Sysop" and "malicious administrator" is a personal attack), you may want to count yourself lucky, "dude." —LX (talk, contribs) 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
So you have time to write, and don't have time to fix...
Why are entering in this question, and not seeing what's going on? To protect your upper caste? As far I know you need to use the tools to protect the community not to use as threat, or to differentiate volunteers.
And how you want to be called? Sir? Monsieur? Your Highness? Because "dude" seems not enough to you.
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't care what you call me, but you don't get to call another volunteer "I Don't Know How Sysop" and "malicious administrator." That's not acceptable, and you should take it back if you expect to be taken seriously. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see the discussion who cause the protection of the page in Commons:Esplanada#Fotos_e_informa.C3.A7.C3.B5es_da_Exposi.C3.A7.C3.A3o_Wiki_Loves_Earth_Brasil (In portuguese). Includes about 5 portuguese speakers volunteers against Rodrigo Argenton because he didnt like to anounce about Wiki Loves Earth photo Exibition. After a edit war (that can be clearly see in the history page of the page) and a discussion which featured several attacks by Rodrigo, I went and protected the page for 2 weeks so the desire of the other volunteers would be respected for at least that time. And I received a personall atack in answer to that. Rodrigo, if you dont withdraw that I will request your block. Béria L. Rodríguez msg 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Here the history, no edit war since July, and in July we found a solution for the discussion. So why this still protected??? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
q.e.d. this page that you are saying that is the right one, is not protected, you made the mistake, you are assuming that! But página principal stills protected, and no one fixed that. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
PS: The template was discussed by the community, and this "propaganda" should be put here Página Principal, as every other event. And be removed when finished, as any other event! (This one guy event with WMF money already over on 12 out). And she just realize the mistake when I said clearly to her boyfriend: [22] and then she entered in correct page [23] doing what she found right, and then came here saying that I'm laying... ;)
So again, why Página principal stills protected???? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


What do we learn from this incident:

  • Template:Página principal/corpo is a template not made for updating with recent events. If it needs adjustments to allow displaying recent events through a transclusion or template parameters, these changes should be undertaken.
  • It is a good idea to use edit summaries linking to relevant discussions.
  • Assuming good faith is a good premise under which to start a discussion.

As a side note to Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton: I think one of Brazil's most valuable heritage is its nature and countryside so you, as a Brazilian, can be proud to have a great image on the Portuguese main page. If you have concerns that money requested by the Wikimedia Foundation hasn't been used appropriately or could have been spent more efficiently, I guess a note on a relevant page on meta: and a link to it on Commons would be more effective.

@Beria and Rodrigo Padula: Please try to get rid of "Clicando aqui". -- Rillke(q?) 00:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rilke, there are no problem - that I know of - about the templates, is just that Rodrigo didn't want then in the Main page and decided to take action in his on hands by reverting everyone who oppose his view. Béria L. Rodríguez msg 09:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
PS.: For public disclosure, since Rodrigo already said: INeverCry, I'm married to Wilfredo since February. I did change my last name and refrained from comment in his QIC and FPC pictures, but didn't think would be necessary to broadcast in Commons VP. Béria L. Rodríguez msg 09:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I really dont know why Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton have to always work in that way. He have a great potential for contribution but he is always causing problems and generating this kind of discussion, based in that behavior he was blocked in many of the others Wikimedia's projects. Based on that behavior, we are losing potential contributors and a lot of contributions. We must learn to work in a more productive and less hostile manner. Regarding the main page, we need to improve it to support more contributions in a easy and good way to announce projects/initiatives in progress and IMHO, based on Rodrigo Argetom behavior he cant be in charge of that page because he dont respect the other's opinions. About WMF's money spent on the WLE Brasil, I was working as partial time for WMF on the Brazilian Catalyst Program as a partial time consultor, I organized the entire event using part of my time as a consultor and a lot of my time as a contributor, the money used was approved by the local partner and by the manager of the project with the revision of the community on the project proposal as explained on wikimedia-l when Rodrigo Argentom attacked me with the argument that I took money from the community to use in "my personal project". Rodrigo Padula (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


License reviewer right

It is probably worth noting that Rodrigo T. A. is not just any user, but someone who has been given the huge responsibility of license reviewing (trusted user). Although I certainly don't want to cause any additional drama here, I must say that I'm beginning to have some doubts that someone who insults other users and sees a "Castes division inside Commons" should hold these rights.    FDMS  4    16:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and I've removed those rights. russavia (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree. The "trusted"-statement has to be seen as in regard to have knowledge about copyright and to be trusted not to abuse the status for malicious activity like approving files that aren't free. A stupid edit war (even if it is the main page) and strong words do not warrant a right removal of a right that hasn't been abused. It warrants a block but not more. Please revise this decision. Also, I guess the user is not always aware of the fact that they are using rude language. But this is unrelated. -- Rillke(q?) 02:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
While we may be able to make such distinctions internally, license reviewers really do need to be trustworthy in the eyes of third parties for the license review process to have any sort of real world credibility. That's not going to be the case if we have reviewers with a history of misbehaving and being blocked for it, even if the issues are not directly related to license reviewing tasks. And while Rodrigo's command of the English language clearly falls short of the self-professed en-3 ("advanced or fluent knowledge: the ability to correct spelling and grammar errors in the language" according to Commons:Babel), the phrases above are clearly intended to be hostile and cannot be interpreted in any other way even with the most favourable of readings. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
For me it's clear that this is a story of a frustrated user who believes that they did not get enough recognition for their work (in form of approval as a chapter), especially after reading the Meta RfC they started. I just encourage them to calm down and prove they can do better in future; maybe to leave people and projects that only make them upset.
Furthermore I suggest to drop the "trusted user" babel box generally and replace it with something more specific. If I, for example, would read "trusted user" on russavia's user page, I would not hesitate to remove it; I trust them to do administrative work and bureaucratic work but what they did with the Jimmy Wales painting (and videos) was disgusting in my opinion. So no general "trust" in getting things right. -- Rillke(q?) 16:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We already had that discussion over two years ago. The word "trusted" is not used on {{User reviewer}}. What Rodrigo has on his user page must be homemade or substed from an earlier version. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Rillke. An admin can remove the license review rights if he found it is misused. For other reasons (like this), it should be discussed in AN/U first and needs a majority of supports. (And I hate to say this: Admins who are well known friends of an involved party should not jump in to take actions, as did here, as it is a clear violation of en:Wikipedia:INVOLVED.) Jee 16:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Maghribnet

Please block Maghribnet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Faisal Al-Abdullah

Please block Faisal Al-Abdullah (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  again for continuing to upload a large number of copyright violations (non-free Internet images with completely made-up licensing claims and in many cases false authorship claims) in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. Given the extensive history of refusing to understand what this project is about, I think a substantially longer block is called for. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. INeverCry 08:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wellingtondelima

Please block Wellingtondelima (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 08:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
In this context and per above, please block also Danieldd-almeida (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , editing & uploading recently for the same ptwiki-entry pt:Ferraz de Vasconcelos and... taken the opportunity, you may also block Marcusvini2272 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for the same reasons. Gunnex (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I blocked Danieldd-almeida (talk · contribs) for a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oliverm

Spammer. Please, also delete user page.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 18:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - at your service. Natuur12 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User 62.224.80.46 vandalism

This user claims anonymous that a lot of pictures are to be deleted with the reason "fop" although no fop restrictions exists in these countries. Example: File:AbuZayedAD140924 12.jpg Ronald Ali-Khan 07:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliban (talk • contribs)

Your complaint is based on 2 erroneous assumptions. FOP (freedom-of-panorama) is not a restriction, but a freedom. In a country without FOP, you cannot take pictures of anything in the public space that is still copyrighted. And exactly that is the case in UAE, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates. There is also a prominent warning about this problem in Category:Mosques in Abu Dhabi. --Túrelio (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Caliban, as I read from Category:Sheikh Zayed Mosque, this mosque has been constructed only in 2007 (final date). So, it is clearly still under full copyright of its architects. So, the only possibility to keep your nice photos on Commons would be to contact the architects and ask for a permission. That might even be in their interest. --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete or hide old versions of images

Requesting someone to hide or delete older versions of File:Hammarby_prästgård_2013_01.jpg and File:Hammarby_prästgård_2013_02.jpg as the owner of the car asked for removal of the licence plate. Thanks in advance. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

David Horvitz

Yet again, someone pretending to be or this actual person has uploaded a photograph to the Commons of the artist with his face obscured and it is being pushed on multiple Wikipedia projects. The file is File:MooddisorderMooddisorder.jpg, which has previously been deleted as File:Mooddisorder.jpg. Naovid (talk · contribs) uploaded it locally while using two other accounts to reinstate it at the Danish Wikipedia after users suspected something was up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done and account blocked. Green Giant (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Mateus Rebelde RBD (talk · contribs)

Duck Mateus RBD (talk · contribs), Mateus Manoela (talk · contribs) and Mateus SBT (talk · contribs). Fabiano msg 00:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 02:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Adatito

Adatito (talk · contribs). Copyvio after block. --Juggler2005 (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Saman hakimi

Saman hakimi (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done User blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

EllisTheManiacoHomi

EllisTheManiacoHomi (talk · contribs). Uploading copyvios after warnings. DLindsley (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Last warning sent. Actually the last file is {{PD-textlogo}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

OgaiT

OgaiT (talk · contribs). Uploading copyvios after warnings. Has received the {{End of copyvios}} warning. DLindsley (Wanna talk?) 00:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Last upload deleted. User blocked for a week. Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Chipriota

Chipriota (talk · contribs). Copyvio after block. --Juggler2005 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Karmanghia

Please block (again) Karmanghia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings and a recent block. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 1 month. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thx, please block per above (multiple (final) warnings) also Marcusvini2272 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + Jchagas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  who - with above mentioned Karmanghia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - formed a copyvio user farm for uploads related to the Brazilian municipality Ferraz de Vasconcelos. Gunnex (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking into it but I will need Trijnstel's help on this one. Natuur12 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
They are definatly related and this is an coordinated action so I bocked all accounts indef and I wonder if Trijn can tell us more about this copyvio farm. Natuur12 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Per above, please block also the fresh account: JeffersonBuenoE (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . 1 (already deleted) upload was inserted by above blocked user Marcusvini2272. Gunnex (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done INeverCry 08:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Per above, please block also Weslleysky (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , reuploading files (uploaded by above copyvio/sock farm) which were previously deleted per copyvio. Gunnex (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Matheus Sales Rosário (talk · contribs)

Possible duck Mateus SBT (talk · contribs) and other. Uploading multiples copyvios. Fabiano msg 21:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Uploads mostly deleted as copyvios and user blocked as a possible sock. Green Giant (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:10.68.16.35

I blocked this IP as logged-out bot (10.*.*.* is a internal IPs, so probably Labs IP), but which bot is this bot, so who should we contact botmaster to fix their bot's login? — revimsg 05:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's User:SchlurcherBot, pinged the master at de wiki. --Denniss (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please semiprotect File:2010-2011 Toyota Prius -- 12-21-2011.jpg

This file has been nominated for deletion three times from three different IP addresses (very likely the same user). The person arguments than he/she owns the car (the plate of the car was blanked), but never provided his/her identity and never contacted to OTRS to request its deletion and ignored the previous closed DRs. Also, the file is in use.

So, I strongly recommend to semiprotect this file only for autoconfirmed users.--Amitie 10g (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: DR Kept, file semi'ed for 2 weeks. — revimsg 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

semi-protection File:Professor-SF-Attached.jpg

File:Professor-SF-Attached.jpg, or block, I really don't care about your actions any-more... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected for 1 month. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked, This is a vandalism only account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alvaranstrong

Alvaranstrong (talk · contribs). Uploading copyvios after warnings. Has received the {{End of copyvios}} warning. DLindsley (My talk page) 23:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week, files tagged or deleted. Yann (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove old infinite filespace protections

The following list of files have indefinite (expiry set as infinity) protection with creation by sysop only, and were protected in 2013. There are no files remaining protected in this way from prior years. I propose that these protections are reviewed and lifted. In cases where the filenames are realistic and likely headaches as vandalism magnets (or harassment) then we should consider usefully blacklisting the title patterns (such as "^Image .*"), rather than using a bizarrely short list of odd protected names.

  1. File:That is me.jpg
  2. File:XXX.jpg
  3. File:Curriculum.pdf
  4. File:Currículum.jpg
  5. File:Анатолий Вишняков.jpg
  6. File:Zdjecie.jpg
  7. File:احمد.jpg
  8. File:DVD 1.jpg
  9. File:CD 2.jpg
  10. File:Vulva.jpg
  11. File:وجدي غنيم.jpg
  12. File:Sasha Pieterse.jpg
  13. File:Twelfth Doctor.jpg
  14. File:Biografia.pdf
  15. File:John Goodman at the Argo Premiere 2012.jpg
  16. File:Getnetabebe.jpg
  17. File:Island.jpg
  18. File:Snapshot-003.jpg
  19. File:Human Penis and Scrotum.jpg
  20. File:Fa.jpg
  21. File:Surgery.jpg
  22. File:Website image.jpg
  23. File:Download (1).jpg
  24. File:Mein Penis.jpg
  25. File:DPAG 2011 55 Herren im Bad.jpg
  26. File:Mifoto.jpg
  27. File:Wiki image main.jpg
  28. File:Luigi.PNG
  29. File:Eliana.jpg
  30. File:Wall.jpg
  31. File:Fgh.jpg
  32. File:Image.pdf.jpg
  33. File:Jim.jpg
  34. File:Estadio.jpg
  35. File:Penis1.jpg

Notes: In 2014 there are currently 76 filenames similarly protected, some may be due to temporary reasons and probably could change to limited protection. There are 52 userspace pages protected in this way, however these are invariably for one-off good reasons such as username changes, known deceased users or indef banned users. --Fæ (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of non-descriptive file name protections. The protections are imho okay and i see no need to remove them. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The key issue is that it is completely ineffective to protect just these handful of pages compared to black-listing, if the problem is the non-descriptive file name. If we stop "Snapshot-003.jpg" being created then we should also stop "Snapshot-001.jpg" and all that fit regex "Snapshot-\d+.jpg". Our policy encourages that page protection ought to be as time limited as possible. It is telling that this only started in 2013 (again, there are zero infinite file protections dating before 2013). --Fæ (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is possible to blacklist "Snaphshot-*", but it is a bad idea to blacklist "Vulva*" or "Wall*", therefore i think in some cases a filename only protection is okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain why we must preventively protect "Vulva" and "Wall" for all eternity, but "Vulvas", "My vulva", "Walls" and "Wall 1", "Brick wall" remain unprotected? I honestly don't understand how the current situation is logical or justifiable. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Right. Feel free to tweak the filter appropriately. Until then, these files should remain protected. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
File:DPAG 2011 55 Herren im Bad.jpg is protected due to office action. I have unprotected File:Twelfth Doctor.jpg as this was a one-time incident. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I had not considered office action. If I have time to revisit this for a future report I can probably factor those out. By the way, I did have a version of the list with the original sysop name against the protection, I'm in two minds about including these as it's about the filename not the person who originally took action; I can easily add these into the list/table if anyone thinks it would help. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's an oddity. As far as I can see, File:DPAG 2011 55 Herren im Bad.jpg pointed out by Mattbuck, is the only filename on Commons that has ever been protected against file recreation by office action (i.e. not just deleted after a DMCA notice). As this was back in 2011, I'm presuming that the WMF are not going about this in the same way any more, probably as deletion is sufficient. If someone knows of another case, let me know, by email if necessary.
I have put a more complete table (mainly out of interest) at Faebot/SandboxA which includes the actioning sysop and pulls a related action log comment for the upload where it exists. Keep in mind, this is filtered to actions in 2013 or earlier (though in practice none is publicly recorded before 2013). --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

file:Convite palestras 2014.png

Please, unprotect file:Convite palestras 2014.png and protect file:Chamada3.png. Reason: It is being used on the editnotice at pt.wikipedia. Thank you, Lechatjaune (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How long? --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The first will not be used anymore. The second one will be used during november. Lechatjaune (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Conselhosupremo

Conselhosupremo (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 05:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Timothe8872

Timothe8872 (talk · contribs). This user is uploading copyrighted images of music album covers like he is in some sort of spree or something like that. Even though he has been warned, and his uploads have been nominated for speedy deletion as copyvios, the user just keeps on charging forward. The administrator that is seeing this will need to either release a block on him, or send him an {{End of copyvios}} warning. DLindsley (My talk page) 21:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. One remaining upload deleted. User blocked for a week. Green Giant (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Taimurijaz97 (talk · contribs)

Taimurijaz97 (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

FeminismSupporter

FeminismSupporter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Continuing vandalism on File:San Diego Comic-Con 2009, Kaley Cuoco.jpg. BLP violations affecting multiple wikis. Dr.K. (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked the sock, cleaned the file and full-upload protected it, and protected the other file in use in the Kaley Cuoco article on en.wiki. INeverCry 07:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

202.158.198.46

It seems 202.158.198.46 is EurovisionNim, socking to override his block. It seems he is too young and incompetent to understand and follow the policies, unfortunately. :( Jee 03:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked the IP, which may be from a school of some kind, as the /19 is run by https://www.aarnet.edu.au/. Also left a quick note at Nim's talk. INeverCry 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please restore and protect

Please restore and protect Category:Día de Muertos Estilo Wiki 2014 against adding pictures--Motopark (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Protecting a category against adding picture ? Not sure that we usually do that. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
But are this kind of [24] picture adding normal way.--Motopark (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Protecting a category "against adding pictures" is not possible. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
We surely can protect the category page against any (text) edit, maybe that's what he wanted to say. a×pdeHello! 18:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lovensk12

Just for the record: I have indef-blocked on the spot Lovensk12 (talk · contribs) who had uploaded a series of 4 images of one or more identifiable young women (face only) using grossly-insulting filenames and descriptions, obviously intended as harassment. --Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OgaiT

OgaiT (talk · contribs). Uploading copyvios after his 1 week long block that was placed on October 29th by Green Giant. DLindsley (My talk page) 22:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:María López Kahlo

María López Kahlo (talk · contribs). Copyvios after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevinoagarrio

Kevinoagarrio (talk · contribs). Copyvio after his block. DLindsley (My talk page) 02:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ndtv.news

Ndtv.news (talk · contribs) has a promotional user name promoting the Indian television network en:NDTV. Per Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames, such promotional names are not allowed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 18:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Erm … COM:UPOLICY is a proposed policy, it does neither allow nor disallow anything …    FDMS  4    18:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It'd certainly be nice to have a set policy. Right now it's basically up to admin discretion. For instance, Fuckyouisil, GermanHaters, Vladimir Putin, North South Centre, Warner Channel LA, Internet gratis para androids, etc, are all blocked under the same non-policy. Which of these should or shouldn't be blocked? Who's to say? INeverCry 19:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, admin discretion, but on a case-per-case basis. I can't tell whether or not this user was editing in good or bad faith as there are no live edits, but I don't think that Ndtv.news (not a domain) itself is promotional and couldn't be used by a good-faith contributor.    FDMS  4    19:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The abscence of a set policy certainly does lead to quite a bit of ambiguity. I think this username is promotional of NDTV, a company, and should be blocked - you think differently; which of us is right, or is either of us right or wrong? Without a set policy, decided by the community, it's all personal judgement and opinion. The only real solution is a set policy. Until we have one, admins have to make the decision they think fits the situation best. INeverCry 19:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, therefore I'm not (and wasn't) asking for a reversal of the decision to block him/her.    FDMS  4    19:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw it as a neutral observation (except for the "Erm ..." ). Anyways, another consideration is that even with a policy, you still don't get uniform action. I used to do a lot of CSD work on en.wiki, mostly of G11 userpages. Some admins hard-blocked the users with {{Uw-spamublock}} or {{Spamusernameblock}} (including me when I was an admin there - I did about 2000 blocks of that kind), others used {{Softerblock}}, and others didn't block at all. Once you have a policy, you inevitably get different/conflicting interpretations and approaches... INeverCry 20:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

SoaresBrito

SoaresBrito (talk · contribs), duck Lucamoreira (talk · contribs). Fabiano msg 21:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Alvaranstrong

Alvaranstrong (talk · contribs). He's back, uploading more copyvios. He was already blocked once. DLindsley (My talk page) 22:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mateus rbd siempre

Mateus rbd siempre (talk · contribs), duck Mateus SBT (talk · contribs). More details. Fabiano msg 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and tagged. INeverCry 01:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please semiprotect File:Yellow cab.JPG

This file has been nominated three times with just non-sense (and possible vandalical) reasoning, by different IP address (that appears to be the same person). Please protect for non-autoconfirmed users for a long period of time, if possible. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Denniss (talk · contribs). Tiptoety talk 17:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please protect Template:Wtf

This template has been nominated for deletion three times, all of them with non-sense reasons. Keeping in mind this template (al most of them) are approved by the community, and also Commons is not censored, is possible to fully protect this template to avoid vandalism like the non-sense DRs? Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File:2010-2011 Toyota Prius -- 12-21-2011.jpg nominated for deletion four times

This file will be famous by their several non-sense, vandalical DRs. This is the fourth nomination by another IP address (apparently the same user), nominated just two days after the previous protection expired.

Is possible to fully or semi protect this file for a long period of time (or permanently)? Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for one year. Yann (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Add category

Please, add category in this protected picture. It is impossible to me. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Which category do you want to add? Green Giant (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Any that retires this file from Category: Media needing categories as of 31 January 2012. What about Category:Hackathons Asia? --Ganímedes (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Green Giant, but is it possible to do this? I've checked all pictures in this category and add categories to some and propose to delete almost all the rest, but this is the only one I can do nothing with it. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW: Does still need the protection? It was given in 2012 by Kaldari, same day was uploaded. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done File is no longer in use on a CN banner, therefore i unprotected the file. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Vintage

Peter Vintage (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of banned user fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Zolapin, uploaded file File:Snejanna 2010 black and white portrait.jpg is a copyvio used by another sock [25] blocked on French WP [26]. Thanks. Akeron (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 23:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Block Último rapper

Último rapper (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Still uploading files and making editions outside the project scope (also vandalism), ignoring the several warnings. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done BY KTo288. Alan (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Changed to three days. ✓ Done now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Matrickey

Matrickey (talk · contribs), same as #Peter Vintage above, obvious sockpuppet of banned user fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Zolapin, upload copyvio image like File:Anjelica.PNG [27] [28]. Thanks. Akeron (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 23:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

Darkness Shines is unblocked, with a log action linking the account to Marknutley for reference (and vice versa) so that any issues of improper account use can be resolved. I believe the IP editor to be Darkness Shines and am satisfied that they wish to formally abandon the Marknutley account, and that it's likely from what has been said, they currently have no access to the account. I was the blocking administrator of Darkness Shines on English Wikipedia and I genuinely did consider blocking the account here, as it was involved in uploading (copyright violating) material which was, in turn, used in a deceptive manner on English Wikipedia, but considered the sanctions against the account on English Wikipedia more appropriate and suitable. If the uploads and behaviour had been more recent or greater in scale, I would have been considerably more likely to have blocked Darkness Shines here also. Please, can we now return to a pleasant and collegial environment instead of fighting with each other. Nick (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not DS. I saw the drama unfolding on AN/I, read the user's English Wikipedia talk page and decided to help him to make it right. 209.203.212.4 18:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're not blocked, why are you using an open proxy to edit Wikimedia Commons? (And why is an open proxy allowed to make multiple edits on an administrators' noticeboard without getting blocked?) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. OP using port 3128. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Russavia removed my legitimate comment. anonymous contribution is not forbidden her, and my cmt. was valid. The Canadian

Extended content

Could somebody please unblock user: Darkness Shines. The user was blocked by russavia for "abusing multiple accounts". The user has never abused multiple accounts. He abounded his other account Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in 2010, and started using this one in 2013. Besides it is an involved block. According to Future Perfect at Sunrise "Russavia had an old feud with Darkness Shines and is playing it out with all dirty tricks" . Now I see that russavia also templated the user talk and user pages. I think with this block russavia misused his tools. 209.203.212.4 14:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • We don't accept appeals on behalf of other users, as a general rule. To expand a bit further on some of your questions, the Marknutley account was abandoned here because it was blocked on English Wikipedia, linking the accounts in the normally expected manner here would have exposed block evasion on English Wikipedia. The original Marknutley account is unblocked and is where Mark should inform us about how he wishes to proceed. If Mark/DS does not have access to the Marknutley account (forgotten password etc) then he may inform me on English Wikipedia how he wishes to proceed and I will take any administrative actions here as necessary, but at the very minimum, we would be expecting a formal link between the two (and any other accounts here on Commons the user may have) on their user pages. Nick (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "We don't accept appeals on behalf of other users, as a general rule." Really? How this other user could appeal for himself, if his talk page access removed? His old account was abounded more than four years ago. Maybe he forgot password? The bottom line is that the user has done absolutely nothing wrong and should be unblocked at once. 209.203.212.4 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If blocks on en:WP are now enforceable on Commons, then when is Russavia going? Maybe we could ask Odder to do it? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Nick: The block reason given at User:Darkness Shines and User:The Last Angry Man is "this user is attempting to use one or more sock puppets to evade a block/ban." Which block Russavia is talking about? If Marknutley is the master account, I failed to see any block log. As far as I know, if no misuse is detected (like voting, COI, etc.), alternate accounts should not be outed to public as people are free to use hidden alternate account for some purposes (like to upload LGBT contents without reveling his interest in that area as it is a crime in some countries, etc.). Jee 16:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not why Marknutley was abandoned and Darkness Shines created. Marknutley remains unblocked and available for use, and until we have some indication from Mark about his decision on how to proceed, all of this is potentially moot. Nick (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, I don't get the "to evade a block/ban" part. Moreover, "editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser if they believe editing will attract scrutiny". So there is no meaning in "ordinary admins" jump in with swords as they are not that must "trusted" in this area. :) Jee 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#I_am – I'm leaving this link here so everyone can understand how the block here came about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Moved from /User problems) Darkness Shines / Russavia

Can we please get some more eyes on this.

Russavia has indef blocked Darkness Shines and The Last Angry Man (a couple of edits in 2011) as socks (not clearly indicated) of Marknutley (last edit in 2010). Not only are they blocked, but talk page access is pulled and the talk pages are also locked to admins only.

I make no comment on any possible connection between these accounts, but whatever it was was three years ago at the minimum. There is no excuse for this sort of heavy-handed lockdown. This is not good or objective admin behaviour, however you look at it. I don't know what sort of en:WP beef is spilling over onto Commons, but it doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all as long as alternative accounts aren't used for voting and/or edit warring they are allowed, but this is not the case here. The user explains why he started using a new account: "Russavia, I have not abused multiple accounts on commons, so the block you placed is bollocks, although unsurprising. I have no intention of editing under my real name anywhere, so unblock my DS account." His old account's name Marknutley was made out of his real name Mark Nutley. Russavia imposed a very bad, involved block. Once again he misused his tools. 209.203.212.4 16:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_44#Russavia_the_sockpuppeteer – So Russavia is allowed to create accounts to evade enwiki blocks, yet Russavia denies that ability to others? Where's Russavia's sense of integrity? Why is he still a sysop? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the "This_cowboy's_running_from_himself" account hasn't been used since it was blocked from enwiki indicates that the account isn't used for its stated purpose of "for when I [Russavia] have access to non-secure internet". The motivation for the account was to evade the enwiki block on the "Russavia" account, and when the "This_cowboy's_running_from_himself" account was blocked on enwiki, Russavia stopped using that account on enwiki and Commons. The Commons community needs to wake up and realize that there's an admin that lies to them. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Russavia discloses four "alternate" accounts at User:Russavia#Alternate_accounts, one of which he even admits is a "joke" account. As to his views on outright destructive socking, just look at his behaviour at en:WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from blocking admin

If any admin wishes to undo the blocks they are free to do so. I see from en.wp that Darkness Shines states that they want that account unblocked as they do not wish to use the Marknutley account. I would likely recommend that the DS account be unblocked, but that a clear link to the Nutley account is provided with a clear statement on the userpage; for example, User:Russavia#Alternate_accounts. russavia (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Moving forward

Thanks for the unblock. However there is a reason I do not want my name associated with online activity anymore, so a redirect from my real name is just as bad as using my real fucking name no? Are there no clean start or outing policies on commons? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best to solve this problem both here and at enwiki. Do you want to ask someone at enwiki to rename the "M" account (like what they do to vanished accounts) and then rename the associated sockpuppet categories? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Renaming is now global and should be requested at m:SRUC, if that is what you want. If you rename the "M" account, there will probably still be redirects around and there will be old signatures in discussions. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

ComboPress again

Previous report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 46#ComboPress (talk.C2.A0· contribs)

ComboPress (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues to make nothing but unconstructive edits, adding nonexistent nonsense categories to pages and edit warring when reverted. Time to go sit in the corner again. This nonsense has been going on for over 14 months now, so please make the time out longer than one day this time. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 month, next time indef. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton

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

Rodrigo.Argenton (talk · contribs) has been asked to chill. DLindsley has been asked to stay clear of R.A. Nothing more to do here. russavia (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton (talk · contribs). Hostile towards other users. DLindsley (My talk page) 21:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol!!!!
He/she is trying to block me, just because I'm cleaning my talk page, after I give the properly answer, as I do that since 2007. [29]
Anything is a reason for block me... go ahead, "punish me" for nothing. That's why the administrative tools were created... wait... was not that... was something related to protect the community... never mind, no one remembers.
As anything that I say here will not change, just to you know, I'm here just to say that I think that's funny this kind of posture in a "open in and collaborative space", good job!!
And she/he mentioned the Steinsplitter... he/she posture is neither subject for laughs, I asked for help, he/she do not helped me, actually, she/he yell at me and threatened me after a questioned how genuine were his/her complaints,as she/he do not show me were was the mistakes, and better, how to fix...
See you in "3 months"? xoxo Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
PS:DLindsley mess with my talk page, but did not let any-kind of warning about this thing...
I am trying to revert the important messages you remove from your talk page, and "Lol!!!!"? No thanks! DLindsley Need something? 14:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Important? For who? For me? This is my talk page, I read, I delete. Simply as that.
Anyone can access msgs in the history, as "A barnstar for you!", "Quality Image Promotion" or "Your account has been blocked", is all there.
The conversation is taking place here:Commons talk:Photo challenge#New style, this is the correct place, not in my talk page.
So why do I need to keep this? More, why do you have interest in disturb me, if I do not talked to you (never, actually). Do You not think you're the only one here who are procrastinating the matter? For what? Who this will help the community? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You might as well not be hostile towards other users, which is what landed you here on the Administrators' noticeboard. I also think you are wanting to get in a dispute with me, so you might also be suited for the "User problems" section. DLindsley Need something? 15:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Mateo Siempre RBD

Mateo Siempre RBD (talk · contribs) is duck Mateus SBT (talk · contribs). More details. Fabiano msg 21:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and tagged, uploads deleted. INeverCry 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Derived from

Please change complete protection to established users (as it is for {{Derivative versions}}), this will be enough protection. I would like to expand it to also accept options, as I did for Derivative versions one year ago. sarang♥사랑 18:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)!

User:Caligul

Caligul (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 01:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Bnwiki10logo3.svg

Please fully protect this file till 31st December since it'll be used in a CentralNotice banner. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 12:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lilbaker

User:Lilbaker uploading nudity without consent after warning. Seattle (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done I've speedy deleted the images since other images taken in a home, with no proof of consent of the subjects, have been previously deleted. I've blocked the user as well for these repeated COM:IDENT violations, especially as all of their uploads have been deleted, and no attempt has been made at providing proof of consent. INeverCry 00:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:LIVEBOX

LIVEBOX (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning [30] (see deleted notifications [31]). --Juggler2005 (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 06:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

Please protect this file for further overwrites. This is one of the few BLP images that has popped up on User:Fæ/SignificantReverts and is used in over 40 mainspace articles in Wikimedia projects. It has had 7 overwrites in the last month. If @Triggerhippie4: or @Bede735: wish to change this again, it would be better for them to discuss their rationale with an administrator from this point on, considering how their changes of minor crops and enhancements are rippling across the projects and triggering reviews due to the necessary sensitivity needed when there are changes to photographs of celebrities. Though I do not believe any further action is needed, the uploaders may wish to consider how better to meet the guidance of Overwriting existing files rather than being at risk of being seen to be revert-warring. --Fæ (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The file was protected for overwrites by INeverCry a week ago for one week. Do you wish this protected to be extended by e.g. one month? --Leyo 06:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That may have been sufficient, looking again at the history. However as the overwrites spanned a month, a month's protection would be proportionate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done three months --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I raised the issue here and the consensus opinion was to retain the existing version, which was uploaded by Triggerhippie4. I have no intention of reverting the current image, and I see not harm in extending the overwrite protection. Bede735 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Slow revert war on Slavic europe.svg

This is another outlier on Fæ/SignificantReverts, showing that the map has had 5 likely contentious reverts in the past 3 weeks. Could someone look at protecting the image for a month (it's unlikely to need to legitimately change faster than that based on its file version history) and @Leftcry: can either establish a consensus with interested editors, or make their own derivative. Changes to this image have high impact as it is in active use on 291 mainspace articles, 365 pages in total, across 73 Wikimedia projects. --Fæ (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected for one week (for now). --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SerSem

This user uploaded thousands of files that violate freedom of panorama in Russia. Despite the fact that many of them have been deleted, he continues uploads: 1, 2 and so on, probably trying to win the contest with a cash prize offered. Please stop mass violations. --213.87.143.141 05:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talk page, requesting a comment here. --A.Savin 10:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Ответил на своей СО. --SerSem (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Mateo SBT

Mateo SBT (talk · contribs) is duck Mateus SBT (talk · contribs). Fabiano msg 00:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rubinarose

Special:Contributions/Rubinarose. Jee 07:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 1 week; next time of such vandalism, he should be blocked indef. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DLindsley

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

Nothing more to see here. Please move along. russavia (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have indef. blocked DLindsley for disruptive behaviour after warnings and three previous blocks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I don't understand why you are reverting to restore cyclic redirects [32][33] As these are his only edits since the last block, I think this huge escalation is incorrect. What are you basing the "disruptive behaviour" on? --99of9 (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@99of9: Sorry? He is doing only nonsense edits and starting nonsense DR's. There is escalating exactly nothing. And we don't add warning to double redirects, double redirects are solved by bot. See also previous AN/U discussion. I have no problem if someone unblocks him, but i don't suggest to do so (see also users enwiki block). (I posted this block here for review, therefore thanks for commenting) --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Steinsplitter is correct on double-redirect. My bot (Revibot (talk · contributions · user rights management)) and some other bots are running every day to solve double redirects. (Though bot cannot solve circular redirect...) Mine runs every day currently. — Revi 12:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: @-revi: Neither redirect was a double redirect, both were redirects to the page they were on. They had persisted for over two weeks. DLindsley was correct to remove them, even if the message was unnecessary. As far as I can see there were no nonsense DRs since the last block expired, nor were the edits nonsense. 1 week -> indefinite is what I mean by escalation. (I have not reviewed the en-wiki block, but it appears to be from before your 24 November block, so I don't see how it can contribute to a 1 December block.) Basically I just don't see anything serious *since the last block expired*. --99of9 (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
As is sated above. Feel free to remove the block, i added the block here for review because i was't 100% sure after i blocked him again. But i am not sure if he will do useful things on commons in the future. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
As commented by 99of9, there were indeed a confusion between DLindsley and Steinsplitter, today. It will be nice if DLindsley "edit summary" while removing comments from his talk page. But his today's edits are not eligible for any block. Jee 13:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I removed the block and i don't touch this user again. I think the user need a tutor after all the drama with multiple users involved. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree; he need to be watched and guided. Jee 13:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Steinsplitter. I agree with you all that some kind of mentoring seems needed. @DLindsley: I suggest you start with file categorization, which we are desparately in need of, and which is reasonably easy to get the hang of as a newcomer. --23:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Steinsplitter: Thanks for the unblock. I also would agree with 99of9. My edits were correct and not "disruptive" like you claimed. I was also correct to remove those redirects in question, yet you incorrectly reverted those removals. Continuing this nonsense of yours in the future may lead to someone starting a desysop request against you. DLindsley Need something? 01:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


RFPP User:FDMS4/User:丶

Please fully protect the following pages:

Thanks.    FDMS  4    21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? I see no history of heavy vandalism/disruption on any of these pages. You're also not an admin, so if you decide you want to make any edits in the future, you won't be able to do so without admin assistance. Unless you can provide some real justification here, this is a bad idea with no real benefit to anybody... -FASTILY 20:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have the perfect solution. You can request everything you need to do it yourself here. Natuur12 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Block sockpuppet

Special:Contributions/Heilbronn-2, sockpuppet of User:Messina (Category:Sockpuppets of Messina). --Floierqu12 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Francisco81a

In 6½ years, Francisco81a (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has not managed to make one single contribution to this project that wasn't a copyright violation. Last time I raised the issue, 36 copyright violations and zero interest in understanding what this project is about in six years was apparently only enough for a three-day block, and consequently, all their "contributions" since have unsurprisingly been copyright violations as well. Please block this copyvio-only account indefinitely this time. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Rillke(q?) 11:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

SuperStitchieux

Please block SuperStitchieux (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , a self confessed second account of Natan Zeitoun (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . In 4½ years, the user has chosen to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings, including a final warning which was blanked out. 11 of the uploads were made after that warning (one with the old account and ten with the new one). Also, please block the original account indefinitely. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A820730

Please block A820730 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for repeatedly uploading copyvio images.--Wcam (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

La Sindrome di Napoleone

Caro Amministratore la mia opera (La Sindrome di Napoleone,.pdf) è stata una volta bloccata perché considerata un test. Non è un test. E' un opera autentica che illustra, secondo parametri scientifici, un fenomeno everesivo italiano. Prima di pubblicarlo ho richiesto la malleveria al Capo dello Stato. la risposta è stata: nessuna censura alla pubblicazione: la trasparenza è stata scelta. E' chi sono io per oppormi? Cordiali saluti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donatella poggioli (talk • contribs) 04:41, 7 December 2014‎ (UTC)

File:La Sindrome di Napoleone.pdf may not be in project scope. To be retained, a file must be "realistically useful for an educational purpose". If it is unlikely to be used, it will probably be deleted. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sintinon

Sintinon (talk · contribs). This DR of File:Flag of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Ghana.gif confirms that this account is a sockpuppet of some user trying to circumvent his block. Please block the account indefinitely. Thanks. DLindsley Need something? 17:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Denniss --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:J2LV

Username may be a promotional name for link, http://www.j2lv.eu/. 1989 19:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tigo4 (talk · contribs)

✓ Blocked. Files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

please block

User talk:Laurenmorales1 add out of scope text own talk page and deletes warnings.--Motopark (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Steinsplitter. Yann (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Maghribnet again

Previous entry: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 13#Maghribnet

Please block Maghribnet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  again for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, next time indef. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-nc-nd-4.0

Template [34] need to protected. See File:Swissradiologobig.jpg to with that tag. Jee 02:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected and deleted. ✓ Done -- Geagea (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:St._Nikolaus_(ship,_1960)

and File:Obersee (Rur)-St.Nikolaus.JPG

Please protect this category. Edit-War with IP. --ACBahn (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the to the old version and asked the ip to provide a source. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:1989

For safety reasons, could someone semi-protect my user page? Thank You. 1989 20:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

José Fieta

Uploading unfree files after warnings. Also created this deletion discussion of a page that obviously should be kept.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Block sockpuppet

Special:Contributions/Heilbronn-3, sockpuppet of User:Messina (Category:Sockpuppets of Messina). --Floierqu12 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Block Último rapper

Ignoring warnings, this user still uploading non-free files and editing his/her User page with outside the project scope content. Please block permanently. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked 2w and nuked. Thanks. --Alan (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Changed to indef. Only advertising. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Waadiia

User Waadiia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is uploading too many copyrighted photos. User was warned by admin Túrelio. 1989 20:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Domaniqs

Domaniqs (talk · contribs). Continues to misuse HotCat categorizer tool. Here is an example of one of their nonsense category additions. DLindsley Need something? 22:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Gave them a hint about conducting experiments and offered help. Given they have zero useful edit, the next time they produce something non-constructive, they are due for being blocked, I think. -- Rillke(q?) 23:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rillke: Your user page was just hit by this HotCat misuser. I reverted the category addition promptly. DLindsley Need something? 00:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
All files deleted, blocked for a day. Yann (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

William Syllas

Please block William Syllas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings and 1 previous block. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:JimmymcCartney1995

JimmymcCartney1995 (talk · contribs). Copyvio after warning. --Juggler2005 (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Faratochi

Faratochi (talk · contribs) Copyvio after warning. --ManFromNord (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

SPs of :en Amanda Smalls

I have blocked the following unused accounts, which have been CU-identified as SPs of Amanda Smalls on :en[35]

--Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_13&oldid=232230187"