Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 19

User:牧羊人2008

牧羊人2008 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user: upload copyvios repeatedly, after final warnings. --Wcam (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wcam: It's the same file, over and over... looks like a new person, who quite possibly just thinks that something is 'broken'. I blocked them for a week, which will hopefully get them talking instead of just reuploading repeatedly. If not, we can go for longer. Revent^talk 17:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Review of a protection action

Could I have some independent views on whether User:Jcb's administrator action to indefinitely protect Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Google Art Project works in Museo Reina Sofia against non-sysop edits in order to ensure the DR could not be categorized with Category:Undelete in 2017, was an appropriate use of sysop rights? The discussion at User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFiles_in_Category:Google_Art_Project_works_in_Museo_Reina_Sofia provides some associated background explaining why the category was added and why photographs need to be reviewed in 2017, 80 years after they were taken by an anonymous photographer. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You have consumed way too much admin attention in this DR. Regardless of your contribution to the DR, you failed to cause an admin to decide in conflict with copyright regulations. There is no admin decision in favor of undeletion in 2017. Placing the DR in that category will probably lead to undeletion on 1 Jan 2017 and a new DR on 2 Jan 2017 with subsequent redeletion on 10 Jan 2017. Please stop gaming the system. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please properly read and absorb the case and facts put forward in the DR. The photographer is anonymous, regardless of the word "unknown" appearing in the museum catalogue. Having an undeletion review in 2017 is appropriate as the photographs taken in Spain in 1936 have an excellent case to be demonstrably public domain. Please accept that it is not impossible for you to be wrong, and using your sysop tools to halt discussion, and make future deletion requests impossible to create in the process, is blatant misuse. --Fæ (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not impressed that the discussion consisted almost entirely of Fae and Jcb arguing with each other, but being unimpressed is pretty normal where Fae and Jcb interact these days. I'm really disappointed to see Jcb taking administrative action where they're so clearly involved, and that's yet another step towards their eventual de-admin discussion, which is becoming more inevitable with every passing involved action. The administrator tools are not to be used to gain an advantage in a dispute, and that's what has happened in this case. I would ask that Jcb unprotects the page and then files a request for the page to be protected against further edits at the correct venue (here, in fact). Nick (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not happy to see this kind of behavior at all. I do not mind "is this right" or "could you review" the problem I'm having is with some "go for the jugular" kinds of remarks that are unnecessary in civilized dialog. There is absolutely no reason to be anything less than polite with each other - and supportive of each other - as we are all working on same project together. To lose the believe in the good faith of others results in this sort of thing, and as we all know COM:AGF is required at all times to participate in the project. Accusations of wrong doing (if you believe in and are demonstrating AGF) require the *assumption* good faith at all times, and I don't see that above. It has been quite a while since the last major drama required blocks; let's put our nice behavior back on and keep it that way. And I really mean that last sentence. Parse it however you wish, it's a promise not a threat. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So, lets be nice to each other, and in order to do so lets forget all about the legal concept of copyright anonimity and lets keep off Commons a wealth of 1930s photography? I’m sure that's not was meant by Ellin, but that’s how it is coming across. The issue here is that someone with access to admin tools neither knows enough about copyright issues nor is using good faith when that matter arises in discussions (see another example pertaining an much less important file). That issue needs to be addressed.

Being nice to each other comes easy when we’re all on the same page about how Commons works and what’s it for. Yet some among us who can only focus on daunting totals about files that “need” to be deleted (and playing games with the concept of copyright anonimity yields formidable numbers of deleted files indeed!) — those need to go, or at least need to be prevented from having free reign over those who are actually working for the curation of a free media repository.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Both Fae and Jcb edit warred at the DR. Per Commons:Blocking policy the admin response, if taken at the time, would be to consider briefly blocking both parties and warn them both against further such behaviour. And yes Jcb deserves further criticism for using his admin tools to settle an edit war he is involved in. Wrt the DR dispute, I don't see how Jim's closing remark has any bearing on whether the DR can be re-opened in 2017, so doesn't prevent the category being added. However not all files should be re-examined, so it might be helpful if a comment were added to the DR to indicate which of the listed files are actually worth re-examining in 2017.

Both parties in this dispute are upset with each other and have lost faith that the other party is always "trying to help the project". But does our COM:AGF policy say "AGF is required at all times to participate in the project", as Ellin claims. No it absolutely does not. Here are the three vital lines in that policy:

• Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
• If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
• If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis.

This final line is vital for this noticeboard and I ask Nick, Ellin, Tuvalkin to consider if their attitude and response to Jcb/Fae reflect that? What have you done to help them resolve the dispute? Are your comments themselves demonstrating a lack of AGF towards one or both parties? Patronising lectures on being nice, or promising to block people for not at all times thinking nice thoughts about one another are not helpful and in fact quite concerning.

Concentrating on the tone and language used by someone who is upset and complaining is harmful and unprofessional yet occurs so often on our noticeboards. Professionals who have people-facing-administrative roles in real life are trained to deal with how upset people express themselves and to handle it. And it isn't by lecturing an upset person . Our COM:AGF policy absolutely does permit one to stop assuming good faith about specific actions, but only in exceptional cases and where clear evidence is presented. So a correct admin response would be to indicate specific cases (quotes, diffs) where folk are "accusing others of harmful motives" without clear evidence being presented or where that evidence is unconvincing. If this is done repeatedly, where "accusing others of harmful motives" appears more designed to smear rather than out of any factual rational basis, then action should be taken or specific warnings given that it must not be repeated. Ellin, you need to get much more specific and indicate you have done more than glance at the pages and gone "tut". As an admin you should be helping rather than rely on making generally disapproving remarks followed by block threats/promises. Edit summaries like "Go back to work, stop the drama, assume good faith or else. (no kidding)" are painfully embarrassingly unprofessional.

But most importantly, I see that Tuválkin links to obsessive–compulsive disorder when clearly talking about Jcb. Accusing another editor of a mental disorder to explain their motivation on this project, breaks COM:AGF so badly a block is absolutely required here.. -- Colin (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(Ah, Colin… Nice of you to show up.) Concerning my mention of OCD, that was not a attempt of practising forensic psychiatry. For what’s worth, I do consider that some degree of obsession/compulsion is present in most of us, me included, and merely regret that while some of us obsess over the huge number of uncategorized files, others (with just too many admins among them) chose to us obsess over the huge number of possible offscope files instead (and, worse, chose to reduce those numbers by prioritizing the deletion of “easy targets”, which are not necessarily the most eggregious cases). So, the accusation you want me tried for is one of Deletionism, which is not, I believe, a malady recognized by the medical profession. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It is terribly nice of Colin to show up. It's a great pity that Jcb won't do likewise and indulge us with his presence, to answer the concerns raised about his use of administrative tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Colin points to this sentence If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis. but I don't understand how Colin can expect us to assume good faith for the intentions of others, or how he expects us to help resolve disputes when Jcb is ignoring any and all discussion about his actions. When concerns are being raised by multiple editors and those concerns are being ignored behind a wall of silence, AGF can be safely discontinued, even if it doesn't mean one has to assume bad faith. Nick (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick, unlike Ellin, I didn't give you all a lecture on AGF at all times. So I didn't "expect [you] to assume good faith...." as you claim: that's Ellin. I agree that there comes a point where such an assumption is naive and unsupportable by the evidence. And it is unhelpful that Jcb is not engaging. But our policy requires you to be specific in your allegations and to provide evidence, not to just generally make disparaging comments about how unimpressed you are. What kind of constructive response do you expect from that? And your opening sentence to me here? Is such sarcastic nastiness necessary? The rest of your post is fine, unlike Ellin's which is completely problematic and unhelpful. And unlike Tuvalkin's comments which are offensive towards people with a serious and distressing mental illness, trivialising it to become simply an insult to throw at a user he does not get along with. Several admins are present on this page, naturally, and yet Tuvalkin remains unblocked and without any warning. This is completely unacceptable to suggest a user "need[s] to go" because of a claim they are mentally ill. -- Colin (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And Nick, if you are serious about Jcb participating in a discussion on this DR/protection, then you should be joining with me in requiring the Jcb is mentally ill insult by Tuválkin retracted and an admin response taken against Tuválkin. You can't seriously expect anyone to participate when someone is verbally kicking them in the kidneys. You say "Jcb is ignoring any and all discussion about his actions". Yet in a previous discussion about Jcb's actions, he was accused of now being legally liable for another person's upload copyright violations. There comes a point where the accusers are behaving worse than the accused, and I remind you of DefendEachOther. -- Colin (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who is twisting what Tuvalkin has said, Colin. Tuválkin has never said Jcb is mentally ill and judging by their response, did not intend for you to read their initial comments in the way you have done. The correct course of action here is for you, Colin, to communicate with Tuválkin, and probably, given such a mis-communication has occurred, for Tuválkin to remove the comment. Blocks, need I remind you, are preventative and not punitive. We do not block someone as a punishment for saying something you don't like, we only block users if it is necessary to prevent damage or to stop any continuation of disruptive behaviour.

I notice you have not engaged with Tuválkin on their talk page as yet, Colin, so that's where you need to head to first, to try and resolve your concerns. I need not remind you of your comment earlier.

• Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
• If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
• If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis.

I would therefore recommend you assume Tuválkin is trying to help the project, you avoid accusing Tuválkin of harmful motives without clear evidence, that you assume good faith (or rather, stop immediately assuming bad faith) and you try to resolve your dispute with them on the basis that they're trying to help. I hope that helps, Colin. Nick (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Tuválkin didn't complain that Jcb was a bit obsessive, or a bit compulsive. He directly linked to the Wikipedia article en:Obsessive–compulsive disorder which describes a serious disabling mental disorder. It absolutely isn't acceptable to call people OCD, or autistic, or schizophrenic, or many other medical conditions when what you mean some slight obsession, awkwardness or inconsistency in their behaviour. Such language has no place on this project and users who do so given no encouragement <redacted>. And I don't remember Denniss engaging with me when he misused his tools to block me, or Ellin engaging with me when she blocked me without apparently even familiarising herself with blocking policy. You know fine well that serious misbehaviour warrants an immediate block. And our blocking policy requires it to be of a suitable duration "proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour". Which is required here as it certainly appears Tuválkin is still unaware that using mental illness as an insult is way across the line. And neither it seems do you. I shall take this to AN/U later, then, as it is a distraction from this topic. -- Colin (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How about you take the time to explain your concerns to Tuválkin instead of demanding some sort of block ? I don't know if you've checked or if you've forgotten, but Tuválkin states "This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of English." so perhaps you could take time out and explain the difference between OCD and "some slight obsession, awkwardness or inconsistency in their behaviour" and how their comments have been perceived by you. Oh, and you can strike your comment saying I'm encouraging this sort of behaviour, since I don't like that. Get it sorted, Colin. Thank you kindly. Nick (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the comment you asked me to strike. You have misjudged the offensiveness of Tuvlkin's comment; defended him by trying to downplay it as a miscommunication or me twisting words; suggested it was merely "saying something [I]don't like", stood alongside Tuvalkin by parroting his sarcastic opening remarks; claimed that one should assume Tuvalkin deliberately linking to the OCD wikipedia article when explaining why Jcb's motivations on the project are so awful he must go was actually Tuvalkin "trying to help the project". I don't think you were on the right balance between condemnation and encouragement, and quite possible to end up condoning others through inaction [or blocking action]. I sincerely hope in future you will be swifter to criticise anyone using mental illness as an insult rather than rising up as an advocate for them. -- Colin (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick, do you seriously think I am welcome on Tuválkin's talk page? Tuválkin has previously been blocked by User:A.Savin for grossly insulting me, and I don't remember that time anyone taking the time to explain to Tuvalkin or consider his "intermediate level of English" might be a mitigating factor, before reaching for the block button. There's nothing "English" about using mental illness as an insult. You are throwing unreasonable and hypocritical obstacles in my path [Are you currently on Jcb's talk page to explain to him nicely how he's in danger of losing his admin bit, or do you prefer instead to post threats here?]. Your parroting of Tuvalkin's sarcastic opening remarks of course place you along side him here, when in fact you should be distancing yourself from this behaviour. Shame on you. -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Colin, I was unaware of the clash you've had in the past with Tuvalkin. I would ask that in the interests of the project, you do try and engage again with Tuválkin - clean slate and all of that. I really don't think it's helpful that you're here now demanding Tuválkin be blocked, in light of your past history with the user, similarly, I would hope that Tuválkin would take on board the important concerns you've raised, modify their comment and moderate their comments in future.

Yes, I'm doing things differently to my fellow administrators - partially, I'm not keen on blocking users to enforce behaviour policies, coming from an en.wp background, civility blocks are almost always counter-productive, and partially, I'm unconvinced the previous block was effective, and I feel a different approach might be more useful. Nick (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nick, this is getting to become a tangent from the topic and I have created an AN/U for the issue. I reject the idea that I cannot complain about Tuválkin because in the past he grossly insulted me. That's a weird get-out-of-jail card for anyone trying to censor criticism. Too many AN pages focused on "who said what to whom" which is fundamentally not AGF, and instead on simple "what they said". Does my criticism of Tuválkin have merit yes/no, not should I be the one to criticise him. If you are determined to do things differently then perhaps you should be the one explaining to Tuválkin what he has done wrong and that it must never be repeated on Commons, rather than inventing all sorts of hoops to jump through, or appearing to condone Tuválkin's actions by investing your time vigorously attacking his critic. Whether blocks are effective or not varies with the person, but it is more than just giving a user time to reflect, it is also the community making a clear and strong statement about what sort of behaviour and language it tolerates. Anyway, AN/U is that away. -- Colin (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely full-protecting the page over a short edit war is a clear violation of the protection policy, and for Jcb to do so when he was one of the warring parties is highly inappropriate. Revent^talk 13:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Except in case of an archived discussion which has a red letter warning: "Please do not make any edits to this archive." It is a closed discussion. Period. If anybody need to edit it, it is only Jim. (Moreover an undeletion date need to be added encase the closing admin says so for all the files in that DR. Here even Fae claimed "quite a few are about to have expired". Hmmm, what's it.) Jee 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the protection policy allows for 'temporary' full protection in the case of edit disputes, and Jcb should not be using his admin bit to win an edit war. Revent^talk 14:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've nothing more to add than what Jim commented below. People can ask the closing admin for clarification, if their comment/action is vague. But making actions interpreting in their own way (as happened here) is not wise. Here many of you (including three admins) wasted a lot of energy without asking him. My single ping changed the situation. Let me know if you are in short of wise admins. ;) Jee 15:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff informing the closing admin/bureaucrat, who appears to have no concern with my edit. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Having been dragged into this dog fight, I reluctantly say:

(a) The addition of the Undelete in 2017 template was not correct. The template should be used only in cases where it is clear that the images all go out from under copyright on 1/1/2017. I have no expectation that those of us who act on the Undelete templates every January take more than a cursory look at the files. We usually would use that template only if the pma period had expired the previous year. In this case, we know that the images must be after the beginning of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, but the war lasted three years and I don't think we know when some/many of these were made. (Note that the rule we are dealing with here is 80 years after creation).

(b) With that understood, I think that the page protection was iffy -- I might have removed the Undelete template, with the reasoning given above, and then protected the page only if the template had been added again. However, since the undelete template was inappropriate and we don't have a template that says, "Take a hard look at these again on 1/1/2017", the protection did not prevent any legitimate additions to the page because I don't think there are any. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the points being made. At the time the category addition was reverted without explanation. After this was given in a second revert edit comment, I added as text to the DR, as that seemed the obvious way to make it clear that a review is required in 2017, not an unthinking undeletion. This was then called disruption by Jcb and the page indef protected.

We do know the precise year of creation, this was on the image text pages and should be in the date fields of the information templates.

In the absence of any workable Commons process, such as the 2017 category, I can diarize to ask for an undeletion review in 2017, at which time an admin with access to the deleted files can produce a list of 1936 photographs, and someone (perhaps me if I'm available) can point out the wealth of books and articles about the history of photojournalism and the importance of anonymity being used in these specific Spanish Civil War photographs (they are literally not 'Unknown' as the agencies were stamped on the back of the photographs, it was the photographers' names that were withheld). I have contacted the Google Cultural Institute asking for a correction to their wording in the catalogue, though I believe that anyone checking all the facts would conclude there are sufficient external reliable sources for the word "Unknown" to be less of an obstacle to assessing these as both anonymous and public domain under the Spanish 80 year rule, even if Google or the Museum remain unresponsive.

Alternatively, I could raise the undeletion request now, and ask for the images taken in 1936 to be added to the category Undelete in 2017, if the discussion about it can have a location where they will be noticed by interested volunteers and those with some awareness of the subject, and remain open long enough for all the facts to be brought out. --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:VikiLaikeR199

VikiLaikeR199 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – copyvios --DCB (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@DCB: Everything's either speedied or at DR now.. Worth seeing if the warnings stick, IMO... hasn't been 'persistent' yet. Revent^talk 15:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Убить, нельзя помиловать!=Удалить нельзя, блокировать!

Заблокируйте меня пожалуйста пожизненно, а так же удалите все мои загрузки, истории правок и комментариев, одним словом всё во всех проектах Википедии, не вынуждайте меня нарушать все возможные правила пользования сайтом для достижения этой цели.Ssp 1.618 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Сделано. --A.Savin 17:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

City flags

Previous one month long semi-protection was not long enough. The vandal is back. I am pretty sure that it is Szm020730. --jdx ^Re: 10:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

File:FaceTime Yosemite.svg

Semi-protection is needed due to excessive vandalism. --jdx ^Re: 11:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Indef semi-protected. Nearly 2 years of garbage edits is more than enough. INeverCry 11:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:جبار_محسن

جبار_محسن (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - Continued issues with copyvios even after expiry of the previous block. Chenzw  Talk  14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. INeverCry (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

user:Chrystalcolor

Chrystalcolor (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – sockpuppet of Kay Körner --DCB (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done obvious. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Unblock user?

Hi! I ask if someone could unblock User:Hard. He was blocked for a month. He committed several mistakes while uploading pics here (basically "verbal agreements" instead of "OTRS permissions), but he has shown good faith, he says he is managing the permissions, and he also pointed the pics he did not take (here). After that ...several "idiomatic and procedure misunderstandings" made him upload a picture that had been deleted before through a deletion request (probably he's actually the author), but he has told me he won't do that again. He's a good guy, seriously. Thanks in advance. Strakhov (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Taivo: Pinging you as the blocking admin. lNeverCry 23:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I generally trust people and I unblocked him. Taivo (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked file

I attempted to upload a photo file but it was blocked with the suggestion that it was not my own work or that it had been artificially created. The photograph is most definitely mine. I think it took it on a Nikon F70 film camera and later scanned the slide. I have full rights on the image. Ronald Cameron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldcameron (talk • contribs) 18:31, 05 October 2016 (UTC)

Your only deleted image is File:Kilmallie Church.jpg, which was deleted because it was empty, corrupt or not in a format we allow here. If this is not the file you mean, I'd advise trying again and checking the licensing you are applying to the image. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk)

This is obviously not about a deleted file, but about the abuse filter. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Then just click the upload button again, as described. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

user:Pedro Luuis Manga

Pedro Luuis Manga (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – repeated upload of private images (out of scope photos) --DCB (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done 6 months, unlikely that a short blocks helps here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Malikaveedu

Please block Malikaveedu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 19:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Soshuvo

Hi,

3rd upload of the same file with the same uncorrected problem: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ALizaConcert.jpg

I found the image on https://twitter.com/jaggasidhu6481/status/611391337619820545 but if you can look at version previous deletion, you may find another source (vague memory of a Facebook URL or something).

As you can see on User talk:Soshuvo, dialog hasn't been possible (maybe language barrier).

Can someone takes action?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Thank you. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Unprotect file

File:Matthew Geostationary VIS-IR 2016.jpg There are no reason to fully protect this page, as no vandalism occur. Please unprotect it. --N-C16 (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@David Levy: Pinging you since this is your upload and protection. lNeverCry 02:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The protection placed by David Levy has already expired, but the file is still protected by cascading protection since the file is used in enwiki's main page. So the protection is necessary to prevent vandalism. @N-C16: Can you post on the file's talk page an edit request if you need to edit/overwrite it? Don't forget to add {{Edit request}} on it for admins to be alerted. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit request done - File:Matthew Geostationary VIS-IR 2016.jpg -> File:Matthew 2016-10-06 1745Z.jpg as an ambiguous name. I checked the time code against the source, it's correct. Revent^talk 08:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

EgweneAV

EgweneAV (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – Has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations since August and has been blocked on the English Wikipedia for the same reason. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've warned them. lNeverCry 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

File:EeOneGuy на Видфест 2016 в СПб.jpg

Semi-protection is needed due to excessive vandalism. --jdx ^Re: 19:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done 3 months. lNeverCry 21:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Consider adding {{Protected}}. 80.221.159.67 20:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

59.91.120.64

Please block 59.91.120.64 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for being a spammer. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

And please be sure to prohibit use of their user talk page when blocking, as they're actively spamming there. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@LX:  Done, for 3 months since it's an IP... hopefully it'll be reassigned by then. Revent^talk 17:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

NAPO12

• NAPO12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Nothing but copyright violations from this account. Previously blocked for 3 days, then again for 45 days, but copyright violations have continued. Is it time for an indefinite block? 80.221.159.67 20:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yes, it is. Every upload was a cross-wiki contribution, and every single one (90!) was deleted. The user has never edited Commons other than to upload copyvios, so talk page 'intervention' is rather pointless. Talk page is left open, in case the editor ever realizes that Commons exists and decided to interact with us. Revent^talk 23:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism and Harassment

User 2A00:1370:812D:131E:E5E1:6123:B085:C665 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) harass to user LxAndrew
Please block he. Legioner2016 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked the /64 for 1 week. lNeverCry 01:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Flag

Hello, I recently uploaded 2 images, both stating that they are free for public domain and for some reason, they are threatening my editing privileges. Did I do something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebCite (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@WebCite: You did not include a 'license template' on the images, so they were flagged (and you were 'warned') by a bot, with a generic message. Your uploads, however, were not marked with a 'free license' at the source...they were 'no cost', yes, but not 'public domain'. Revent^talk 20:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Reading http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/31717/what-do-the-phrases-free-speech-vs.-free-beer-really-mean/ might help. Revent^talk

Special:Contributions/124.82.45.199

Vandalism in Help Desk and in some files. Jee 04:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a few days. If that fails we could soft-block 124.82.0.0/18. Mobile range though... lNeverCry 04:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Noveen98

Resolved

User Noveen98 (talk · contribs) has replaced descriptions of several pictures with commercial texts and links. --Maasaak (talk) 18:22, 14 Oct 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indef as a spam-only account. All edits nuked. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: , seems to be identical with SEO007 who added trash of the same style and is still waiting for treatment ;). --Achim (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Shown the door. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

user:Mehlauge

Mehlauge (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – repeated copyvio uploads --DCB (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hold on please, well known otrs customer. Remaining issues should be addressed. --Krd 13:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Issue addressed with the user. --Krd 15:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Krd is a highly trusted checkuser and 'crat. If he says the users mentioned have purposely not been blocked, then I'm sure there's a very good reason. Krd has definitely earned the trust of the Commons community, so I'm closing this as no action required. lNeverCry 20:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Large number of sockpuppets of User:Aidelity

As per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Apple Chan and Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ken Hirai In the Center of the World, the following accounts are all suspected of belonging to the same user who has been active since late August. Each account is generally used to upload one copyvio image as well as arbitrarily adding "Quality Image" tags to others' images and voting for each others' images in "Valued Image" nominations even though the nomination pages were not actually listed and were thus hidden from the Commons:Valued image candidates page (such as at Commons:Valued image candidates/葵 Aoi.jpg). Most of the copyvio uploads and categories created by these accounts have already been deleted by Krd, but the accounts need to be blocked to prevent re-uploading. --DAJF (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppeteer (already indefinitely blocked):

• Aidelity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets:

• Apple Chan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ken Hirai In the Center of the World (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Asami Sakanoue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Yukie Kawamura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Kawamura Yukie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Hung Po Tsai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ruco Chan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Koutaichi Azuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Tamiki Nemoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Kenseki Abiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Hidenari Tobita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Fukada Akari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Kagurazaka Tori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Hong Kong Stories (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Iron Daruma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• JV Wonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Isamu Ueno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Circle Brick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr. Diu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Master Szeto + Snow Suen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• MeteorKK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Glory Belly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Kotone Suzumiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Aika Yumeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The users have been intentionally not blocked. I'd appreciate if this could be withdrawn or closed as not done without asking for the reasons. --Krd 14:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Translations:Commons:Photo challenge/Page display title/pl

Semi-protection is needed due to excessive vandalism. --jdx ^Re: 16:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I hope 3 months is enough. lNeverCry 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Block puppet users

Most of the following users have been uploaded photos that infringe copyright to commons, and one of them has been blocked for vandalism. According to the CU result in zhwiki, please block these users.

• 花蓮小王 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 機甲戰神 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 番茄勇士 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Oshutoru (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Rexking999 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• 忘了如何遺忘 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

--Techyan（Talk） 01:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 02:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Carolspry

Please block Carolspry (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for being a spammer. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 2 weeks. Storkk (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

spammer network?

When reviewing their edit pattern, I got the impression that behind the following accounts there might be an PR or marketing agency. They typically upload business-like stock images with a promotionally-worded description, that often contained (or was later added) a direkt link to the to-be-promoted company. The currently active account DN2016 also added sort of advertisements, which usually includes a weblink to the company, to existing images from completely independent uploads, such as here and here. I propose to indef them all. Eventually a CU might be performed for confirmation.

• DN2016 (talk · contribs)
• RKS2016 (talk · contribs)
• Joyce Leung123 (talk · contribs)

--Túrelio (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed DN2016 and RKS2016 and IMO you shouldn't propose, you should just block them and speedy delete most of their uploads. These are spam-only accounts. BTW. I think it should be "or" instead of German "oder". --jdx ^Re: 17:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Revent^talk 00:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

user:Stateemotion

Stateemotion (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – sockpuppet of Kay Körner --DCB (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 09:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Block review

I haven't done many of these yet... It is possible I should have considered myself involved, given my participation in the deletion/undeletion discussions around the file, so I would like to request a review into my block of Gl dili. One warning was at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-10#File:Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan.jpg, a second warning right above the accusation that caused the block at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan.jpg. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Support This was a good block and 3 days was a proper length. Taivo (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Should I have considered myself involved, do you think? Storkk (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: I think it's fine, you were enforcing a warning that had been issued by another admin. Revent^talk 21:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't 'unilaterally' apply sanctions in cases where the person was directing drama at you, as involved, but when others (especially other admins, who would presumably do so themselves) have made it clear that the behavior was not acceptable, and it continues, you are just enforcing the apparent consensus. Revent^talk 21:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Request block for User:帥到分手

According to the CU result on Chinese Wikipedia, this user is a puppet of User:花蓮小王. This user keep uploading the same unfree profile photo to commons. --Techyan（Talk） 13:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Upload protection for File:Mediacoder.png

Hi.

File:Mediacoder.png has a special status: It is a screenshot of a computer program that was once upon a time free, but no longer is. So far, twice people have tried to update it to the latest version without realizing that they must not, even though there is a explicit copyright notice in the image description page. I suggest we apply upload protection to this file to prevent such mistakes, given that it is used in 11 other projects. Those projects can still the latest version as long as they comply with their own fair use rules.

By the way, revisions "01:26, 5 August 2011" and "16:33, 16 April 2015" are non-free. Isn't it better if an admin hid those revisions?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 10:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Block of User:PetarM

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

This second indef block by @INeverCry: of the user is widely not justified, I disagreed the first time and even more now, as the nomination in FPC is closed and the user can not do again the same thing. We are not a moralistic team, which wrest by force the words we want to hear from the users. See relative previous discussions.. Several administrators agreed that an indef block was a bit exagerate, as far I see all agrees to unblock when the FPC nomination was closed, even with nothing said by the user. I  Support an unblock right now Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! He threatened to get revenge on me! And you support an immediate unblock? Did you even take the time to read what I wrote at his talk? I don't think you did. You're too involved here Christian or you're simply unable to understand PetarM's comment to Daniel Case. PetarM just threatened to get revenge against me and stated that the situation is not resolved, as I thought when I unblocked him. Are threats OK with you Christian? He states clearly that he'g going to wait till another occasion to do something to me in revenge for the original block. This is unacceptable no matter how much you like his FPCs. Your behavior as an admin hasn't been very impressive in this case Christian. Your whole case has been to endlessly harp about indef, indef indef... Threats and fake unblock requests. Those are fine with you eh? lNeverCry 10:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

INC, I don't read what PetarM as a "threat". I may be wrong, but it seems he's just still upset with you. He's not threatening to "do something to you". He might have a moan about you at some future point. You're an admin, people will moan about you. I think you are over-reacting, and I'm not happy with your aggressive response to Christian. Go take a break. -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @INeverCry: You're too involved here Christian Yes, Christian's involved, and you too are involved. The difference here is that Christian made the right action (asked for a block review and just supported an unblock), and you made the wrong one (re-indef blocking a user that "made drama against you"). ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @INeverCry: , If unblock results in any kind of disruption we can quickly re-block. We have had people that gamed the system before, they got reblocked fairly quickly most of the time. I will be honest here, I know very little about the incident but it does not look good to me that the block log lists only one admin with multiple blocks independent of the merit of the actual blocks themselves. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You weren't the one he threatened. lNeverCry 10:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a rather good definition of when you shouldn't be the one applying any sanctions. Revent^talk 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: I have been threatened many times. I do not see the relevance of this. If the threat feels genuine and physical the block will not help, you need WMF Legal support and actual law enforcement involvement. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict)  Unblock the user. INC's block is very inappropriate and punitive. I don't understand why INC's believing that PetarM will be planning a revenge against him, PetarM just said that he didn't have a chance to explain his side when the thread about him was archived, and if it wasn't archived, he would have explain his side. And he said that the situation is not yet resolved. So what? He apologized for the "libelous" language he used. And I am agreeing with him that this situation is not yet resolved. INC's action is not neutral and he is involved in this matter, so that's why he shouldn't have block Mile and instead poke another uninvolved admin to block for them (if they agree). All I would like to say to INeverCry is to stop assuming bad faith and putting more heat. P.S. PetarM has a FPC to be reviewed, it would not be nice if they can't answer questions regarding his FPC or make minor fixes to his FPC. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "will wait till they open, or speak on seperate topic" - What does that mean to you then? That he's waiting for a chance to cuddle with me? Why is it OK for him to say the situation is resolved in an unblock, and then tell Daniel the next day that the block is removed but that the situation is not resolved? He's threatened to get revenge against me when I "open, or speak on seperate topic". lNeverCry 10:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Pokéfan95: I would remind you that your close involvement with Russavia makes you pretty involved where I'm concerned too. lNeverCry 10:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  @INeverCry: Oh, and why you're reviving the Russavia drama now? Out of words? You know, I am not interested anymore on that drama, and if you will see, I am a LR again since I avoided WMF and Russavia drama for months. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  You've been quick to oppose everything on my side of the story. You're support of Russavia makes that behavior very questionable as regards motivation on your part. You should let the grownups talk it out kid. lNeverCry 11:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  Could you please be on-topic since your recent comments here and on PetarM's talk page is being off-topic. I having close involvement with Russavia have no connection with this block review and is just absolutely nonsense. Instead of recalling the drama which is almost to be eradicated here on Commons, you should have explain how you thought that PetarM is threatening you with a revenge. There have been users who have been threatened with death threats, and they are still alive and can handle those threats. I don't understand why you can't handle this simple threat (much simpler than death threats!). I have nothing to say from now but take a break please. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that I understood but they archivated my case... will wait till they open, or speak on seperate topic. was in reference to the current closed state of the first section of COM:AN - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:PetarM and that PetarM would like the section there either re-opened, or that he would like to make a statement concerning the block which would see him opening up a new section (which he calls a topic). I think this is something which INC should have asked PetarM to clarify, and if the response necessitated it, INC should then have asked for the community, or at the very least, an uninvolved administrator, to take action against PetarM. I will also add that I'm unimpressed by the other part of PetarM's comment though, which is unhelpful and inflammatory in tone Daniel Case block is solved, but not this sitation, i wasnt left to say one word there on Block of PetarM. It looks like prosecutor, judge and jury was in one person. but it clearly was not block-worthy.

I would recommend INC to lift the block against PetarM as a matter of some urgency and to agree to not take any further administrative action with regards to PetarM or the initial issues which resulted in the original block.

Finally, I have to strongly admonish INeverCry for the wholly unacceptable way in which they've spoken to Pokéfan95 - that's behaviour which is arguably block-worthy and wholly unbecoming of an administrator. I expect redactions and an apology to Pokéfan95. Nick (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nick, I interpret "i wasnt left to say one word there on Block of PetarM" to mean his block also include his talk page, so he could not defend himself or appeal the indef block. And the "prosecutor, judge and jury was in one person" refered to INC blocking PetarM without consulting with the community first. As a user with no previous (AFAIK) record of such problem behaviour, I think INC wrongly treated PetarM like he was some random IP/sock vandal/attack account worthy of an instant indef block. Further the threats that he's been reported to WMF legal must have been distressing. There are things PetarM deserves criticism for, but I think it possible to interpret his comments as valid opinion from someone still upset, and not entirely without reason. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Troutslap for mentioning Russavia. Take a break, let others sort this out. --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

INC overtired again

The insult to Pokéfan95 above "You should let the grownups talk it out kid." is terrible. And bringing in Pokefan's opinions wrt Russavia is more evidence of INC making ad-hominem comments to discredit those he's in conflict with (recently there have been two ad-hominem attacks on A.Savin). The angry attacks on Christian are also unjustified. Looking at INC's contributions, he's been editing for 16 hours almost without break. It seems like he has finally gone to bed at what must be 4am local time, otherwise I'd support a block to stop him for making further such attacks. If one looks back at previous days and drama, it is always after midnight local time and next day he wakes up with some second thoughts about his actions. I will say that I am impressed with INC ability to reflect and admit mistakes, something many others are not capable of doing. But I would much rather he not get into these difficulties.

We all appreciate INC's extensive admin work but a 16 hour day running over midnight is not healthy and seems to be leading to him having a very short fuse at the end. I suggest as a community we ask him to stop editing after midnight, and get a healthier work-life-sleep balance. Perhaps there are other constructive ideas. Without some change to his editing patterns, I see an inevitable de-admin (whether self-requested or enforced) and the community made it clear the last one was the final. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please move the general debate about a certain blockreason elswhere. It's off topic here.

@Colin: I would question why you would be trying to identify when people sleep or not. Such people have been blocked for harassment you know. If I were in INeverCry's shoes your post would make me further distressed. Is that your intention? Agitating someone passionate about something clearly at odds with few others is not the kind of conduct we should welcome here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC) INC has made many comments recently about "going to bed" and it being "2am" where he is. Per Duty Calls, this is not wise. There's quite an obvious pattern here and a fairly obvious remedy and it doesn't involve anyone getting blocked or losing their bit. Seems like a win-win for everyone. Do not accuse anyone of "harassment" -- it is a criminal offense and it's time Commons stopped using that word except where actually legally justified. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Colin: We are not going to enforce curfew here so your remark is unhelpful at best. Harassment is a thing that happens on wiki and we block for it. People who engage in harassment are also overly sensitive in the words usage. Mind that I did not accuse anyone of harassment, you came to that conclusion on your own regarding your conduct. I merely suggested that your remarks weren't helping and such activity was associated with cases of harassment before. That itself would not constitute an accusation by any reasonable person. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Your argument is disingenuous. You accused me of "trying to identify when people sleep or not", which is untrue: INC openly and frequently comments on his need to go to bed and the late time he is editing. Your statement "Such people have been blocked for harassment you know" is grammatically awkward since there's no "such people" in your preceding sentence but your clarification does not help your case. On this, and on the "sensitive = guilty" claim, you are making an en:Association fallacy. It's a not very clever way of accusing someone of something while denying it. I haven't requested the community "enforce curfew" but that his friends might join with me in advising INC to stop editing while tired. I suggest you are display extreme bad faith here and to retract all your remarks. It is you who are being unhelpful. -- Colin (talk) And btw, my concern about misuse of the H word comes from this block and the log entry which caused User:A.Savin much distress, and was IMO completely unjustified. I repeat, it is time Commons stopped using the language of criminal acts for the petty squabbles here, or in order to intimidate folk, as you are doing. Admins need to be far more careful to avoid such defamatory language. It isn't necessary and it isn't helpful, and eventually an admin will find themselves on the pointy end of a legal claim for doing so. It isn't COM:MELLOW or COM:AGF to accuse longstanding users of criminal acts. If you believe a crime is being committed, take it privately to WMF. Otherwise find better language to use. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Although the topic is closed now, I would add just for the record: as I am using my real name, the accusation of a criminal offence in my block log (especially given the fact that it was definitely NOT me who did harassment at that time) is a big damage for me, who is contributing in good faith here. I did a request to oversighters Odder, Rama, and PierreSelim to hide this entry, but it was ignored, and additionally sabotaged by an other sysop whom I previously trusted (how naive of mine). Just for the record; no need for any response by whoever. --A.Savin 13:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Intimidation/harassment is an option in the drop-down list (and is a block reason you last used on 30 August 2016). Is this something we should consider removing from the list of block reasons ? Nick (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Nick yes absolutely. In my view we need to change the language used to deal with this. Online offences are increasingly being taken seriously and reported widely in news and social media. Terms like "intimidation", "harassment", "stalking" are all criminal offenses. I'm not a lawyer but I would assume it would be relatively easily to sue for defamation in the UK if the word is used inappropriately and unjustly. It could easily affect someone's job prospects if an internet search for their real name reveals a block for "harassment" on a reputable Wikimedia site. The actual Commons:Blocking policy only describes harassment as a blocking reasons for accounts primarily to create a hostile environment for another user which certainly doesn't fit any long-term user typically editing in good faith. The term may be appropriate for some IP/Vandal attacks but otherwise not. Its presence in the drop down list is certainly a concern and I would support its removal, along with a warning in BP to avoid potentially defamatory block reasons. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC) @Colin: Solution is simple then. All users need to do is act in a civil, mature and COM:MELLOW manner while not acting in a manner that would intimidate, harass or stalk others. I recognize not following such a conduct is just a petty squabble in your mind, that opinion probably isn't shared by vast majority of your peers on this site. You should take your legal concerns to WMF Legal. They have actual lawyers that can properly address your legal concerns. Trying to deconstruct your earlier remarks in reply to mine... Where do I begin... Identifying someones sleep cycle is kind of as extreme as you can get, it is quite creepy to be honest. Most people would simply suggest "user has burnout" or "user is tired" without specifying details. Your conduct here so far exemplifies my suspicions I hinted at the start of this thread. You do not get to disregard replies to your comments as off topic like this. Less so if you yourself are disregarding yourself which is disingenuous at best but probably more on the hypocritical side. I addressed the legal concerns above. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ending this

I am going to unblock PetarM. The reblock is quite unhelpful and it prevents the person blocked to defend himself since this makes it impossible for him to give his point of view.

When an admin places an indef block for a second time when he is clearly involved out of self-preservation this is troublesome since this means the admin either panicked or doesn’t know when to ask for help. PetarM did nothing blockable after the block expired and we have to read his comments with good faith.

I do believe INC acted in good faith when he placed the first and second block but the second block isn’t really supported by our blocking policy. Yes, I know, it is broad policy but it is pretty obvious that it isn’t created to allow admins to protect themselves from possible criticism or a dialogue regarding one of their admin actions.

The situation is getting more unmellow by the minute with people making personal attacks, bullying and mentioning stuff which is unhelpful. Therefor I like to end my essay with the famous words of the former judge Frank Visser. Dit is is mijn uitspraak en daar zult u het mee moeten doen. Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User Μολύβι

Μολύβι (talk · contribs) uploads nonsense files with nonsense descriptions, test edits and low quality duplicates. Looks like one more puppet by Πρώτη Σερρών. --C messier (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 21:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Vardpat

Vardpat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user—persistent uploading of copyrighted images after multiple warnings. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Nuked and prescribed a one week break from Commons. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

WPK

Hello, User:Mapsed is a blocked user User:WPK~commonswiki. Confirmed here. --Stryn (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and tagged. lNeverCry 20:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

unlicensed upload, deleted, blocked, and again unlicensed upload?

Hi,

User talk:Josephridder uploaded File:Borderlines-bolivia-blog.jpg and now File:Borderlines-bolivia-.jpg has been uploaded although he is blocked: [1]. The file is from NYT opinator--Keysanger 08:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done 2014 uploads. One file deleted. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

user:Flexillion

Flexillion (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – copyvios --DCB (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Appears to have stopped after De728631's warning. I'd suggest no further action is needed unless the behavior resumes. Storkk (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Once they resume uploading non-free images, a block is in order but we don't need any action right now. De728631 (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Matvei Gromov

Matvei Gromov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – copyvios - again. 94.25.229.83 06:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Copyvios deleted, user blocked for 1 month. lNeverCry 07:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tito5918

Tito5918 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – The user has had repeated warnings of not to upload copyrighted images on Commons but continues to do so in spite of the warnings. The user has uploaded this image, claiming to have ownership of the picture. But a quick search on Google shows that the image being credited to a photographer named Omar Cruz (Source). Magiciandude (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Womennns

Womennns (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continues to load copyvios. Probably block is needed. Dmitry89 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Эlcobbola _talk 18:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ricnews

Ricnews (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Against the COM:UPOLICY, see its uploads.--Stang 03:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Editfping

Please block Editfping (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for repeat copyvio uploads after warning. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done 1 week, --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Request unprotection

I request unprotection of File:《西游记之大圣归来》宣传牌.jpg because I believe this image is non-free and would like to nominate for deletion. --Wcam (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Wcam: This file is not protected and it never was. --jdx ^Re: 12:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Alex777 is back

For the record: Nuked and blocked longtime vandal puppet Evgeninic (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions). This guy has a lot of spare time. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 12:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:SRHSP

For the record: SRHSP (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Blocked 3 days for disruptive editing. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SRHSP + User page of User:SRHSP --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 17:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Rjjk164

Rjjk164 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has uploaded and reuploaded the same copyvio images despite having been warned. BethNaught (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 22:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Cheatinghistory

Cheatinghistory (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user – sockpuppet of Kay Körner --DCB (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Didym (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Livioandronico2013

User:Livioandronico2013 was blocked for six months due to his inappropriate behavior in COM:FPC. It leads to some conflicts between admins who handled it. As a side effect, all admins step back, leaving the case unattended. I think Ikan Kekek's comment ("In spite of his unchanged attitude, I would propose a 2-month block from Commons, along with a consensus for 6 months at the first sign of a recurrence of the problems that led to the block.") seems a sensible solution and so bringing it to the attention of admins as two months already passed. I'm not sure whether there is a progress in User:Livioandronico2013's behaviour; but think we can give him one more chance. (I noticed this by User_talk:Livioandronico2013#Block comment which is not a friendly one. But we have to accept that his English is very poor.) Jee 03:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support Unblocking him. He's been participating at en.wiki FPC with no problems whatsoever. He's already stated that he accepts that he would be under restriction concerning his behavior at FPC here. If he's unblocked here, I would ask that any re-block be discussed on this board if it comes to that. As Jee says though, why not give him a shot? 2 months blocked after only a 1 week previous block is a pretty stiff penalty served. He has good contributions to make to Commons. lNeverCry 04:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Service:

11:25, 8. Sep. 2016	Nyttend	reset	(Resetting original block date/time)
18:07, 7. Sep. 2016	INeverCry	6 months	(Intimidation/harassment: repeated trolling on COM:FPC, it seems the user just doesn't get it)
07:30, 7. Sep. 2016	INeverCry	lifted block	(per COM:BP: Blocks based on disruptive behaviour should be lifted if there is reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour will not resume (Livio has agreed to stop the behavior and is banned from FPC/QIC/VIC))
14:15, 30. Aug. 2016	A.Savin	6 months	(Intimidation/harassment: repeated trolling on COM:FPC, it seems the user just doesn't get it)
20:16, 20. Apr. 2015	Natuur12	talk page block	(blocking talk page as well since the uncivil comments continue there)
17:28, 19. Apr. 2015	Natuur12	1 week	(Repeated uncivil comments per the complaint here [2])
13:50, 3. Mär. 2015	A.Savin	3 days	(repeated mass violations of COM:Categories, COM:OVERCAT despite several discussions + requests)

I oppose to give this user special treatment for future blocks, he either behaves or not. Simple as that. My question is: why there's no trouble on enwiki, only here? I can't be the language barrier, as Jee suggested. I gave up on caring what's happening on FP/QI, so I won't oppose unblocking, as long as the blocking admin, in this case INC, agrees. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

He has not much contributions in EN before being blocked here. So if his behavior there is good now; it's a good sign. Jee 05:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Besides edit war in w:en:Rome...... ;-) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• I am in favor of unblocking. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would still favor unblocking him on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Having talked with him in Italian, basically the question is that in some FpC he was the target of some "fouls" (to use a soccer term) and the referee punished only his reaction. Of course there's no reason to react in any case, though I think 6 months are a bit too much. I guess that 2 months have been enough. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In COM:FPC a minimum of 7 support is required and a minimum of 2:1 support:oppose to an image get promoted. So he can simply ignore one or two people oppose if he thinks their oppose is not genuine. He must respect the majority of opinions if he gets more opposes. I think he can continue participating in FPC if unblocked. But if same conflict repeated he may be re-blocked for a minimum of 6 months. (There was a proposal to topic ban him from FPC; but some people opposed it. So we are not considering it now.) Jee 09:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose unblocking. It seems he still believes his block was unfair by a bad admin and Sergio's comment that Livio think's he was a "target" shows he still doesn't understand or appreciate his problems. Also I think the suggestion that he writes his replies in Italian is silly. There is no evidence that language barriers are Livio's problem. He becomes agressive when his images get opposed, and insulting to the reviewers saying he does not value their review, and has engaged in blatant revenge voting. This is not a language problem but an attitude problem. He does not need good English to know how to behave or to be respectful of others. I have no desire to be insulted in Italian. I suggest we wait until Livio shows that understanding. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  Colin, I stated clear that there is no reason for bad behaviour, even as reaction, thus I agreed with the block. Six months were a bit too much though. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't really see what the length has to do with it. Make it indefinite. He hasn't changed and is still rude towards the blocking admin. A couple of dozen edits, mostly nominating his own FPCs, on en:wp do not count as evidence. But his talk page comments do. He's not going to be different. Sergio, your comment at 9:39 implies Livio was badly treated at FP and reacted badly. No he wasn't. Until Livio accepts that his block and his bad behaviour is entirely his fault, and not some language issue or unfair admins or nasty reviewers... No. -- Colin (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin. Natuur12 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Martin Kozielski

Sockpuppet of Messina, a user locked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Joaquim villafane copyvios after last warning

Hi,

After being warned and threatened with block (see last warning by Hedwig in Washington at User talk:Joaquim villafane#Copyright violations), this user continue to upload copyrighted materials. I don't think it's an excusable misunderstanding of COM:CHARACTER. Can he be effectively blocked as promised?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Elias da Cunha Pessoa (Lith de A J de Stª Barbara 1861).jpg nominated for deletioon four times by the same user

This file and has been nominated for deletion four times by the same user since January 2016. Please fully protect both this file and the related DR. And also File:Elias_da_Cunha_Pessoa.jpg, nominated once but the same picture. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As you removed the request and warned the user, I don't think anything is to be done. Yann (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing protection request

Hi, I'd like to request the Rolfing wiki page be fully protected for a year after restoring it to my latest version, or something the administrator deems worthy after editing it. I edited it to add substantial peer-reviewed journals and information, while leaving in concerns and criticisms about it being pseudoscience "quackery," and believe it was a well-balanced, neutral-positioned article. There are a team of 3 editors working together to revert the article back to it's embarrassingly biased and poorly validated state to avoid the 3R rule. The history of their lockdown on the page goes back in the Talk section, as they comment playfully to one another while undoing other editors' reasonable and unbiased edits. I noticed the acupuncture page also had to be protected, perhaps for similar reasons?

I am a new user, but I have a PhD in psychology and am well-trained in research evaluation and citations. Thanks for considering. Cyintherye (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cyintherye: This is Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia. You need to go ask 'over there'. en:WP:AN is what you are looking for. Revent^talk 08:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Captain Smart!

Sockpuppet of recurring sockmaster User:AdnanAliAfzal. I am not entirely sure, if and how en-Wiki's CU results are considered for Commons' purposes, but see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal/Archive for a list of known Adnan socks (7 November - Captain Smart!). Obvious confirmed sock, removing deletion notice from their upload. GermanJoe (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indefinitely. --jdx ^Re: 23:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Exo69

Please block Exo69 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user again for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. User blocked indefinitely (as this is a repeat 'offence'). Nick (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Protection of page

I want this page's protection. I think this page should be edit by administrators only. I am requesting for this because I am the creator of the page.~Hunter17 16:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Protection against what? I'd be unwilling to let only admins edit it because from time to time other editors may wish to get in touch with you, and your talk page is the usual venue for this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: Hi Rod. This is a sock of LTA sockmaster Jhony jhony ha ji. He's playing off the name of our fellow admin ~riley. I've blocked and tagged this sock and reported it on en.wiki. If you notice any posts on noticeboards by new users with names that resemble those of Commons admins, let me know. Also, this LTA focuses on politicians from India and uses crop tool a lot. I'll add some notes to the master page. lNeverCry 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, he hadn't hit my radar. But he has now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Paula151097 sockpuppet of *151097 series

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Paula151097 has the same uploads of copyrighted material than Special:Contributions/Dani151097, sockpuppet of Special:Contributions/Guilherme151097.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and tagged, and uploads nuked. I've also indeffed the master account. lNeverCry 19:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:16356isLOL

16356isLOL (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user massive copyvio --84.181.29.208 19:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Warning should suffice. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ceiling fan vandal

Adchand2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Blocked another puppet of the ceiling fan vandal. I forgot the name of the puppet-master actually. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged it. The master account is David Beals. lNeverCry 05:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: , @Magog the Ogre: , @Elcobbola: Pinging you guys so you know he's back. lNeverCry 06:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Right David Beals. Guess he just got released from wherever he went for some time. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

QA1318122551

QA1318122551 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user - copyvio after warnings. 94.25.228.20 14:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

: Not done 1 upload only. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

????? Before this comment you - no doubt - checked his removed contribution? And his user pages? 06:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.25.229.20 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Warning left. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 07:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Mhao Koe

Please block him. A sock of User:Mushroom9. See proof https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mhao_Koe MLC4U (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 21:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Mors certa

Sockpuppet of Eygenart who is a troll from the Ukranenland museum. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukranenland 29.JPG. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please fill up a Requests for checkuser. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Should be a good idea to protect (semi, or full is possible) the file nominated by the user? --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taivo: @Mattbuck: Eygenart was indeffed by Taivo and then unblocked per request by Mattbuck, so pinging them for their input on this. lNeverCry 23:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to say, except User:Taivo/Archive16 Jul–Sep#Block of Eygenart. Taivo (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Kay Körner seems to be back as User:Realestatebubbleus this time

Please check someone whether this is another sockpuppet of him. User:Realestatebubbleus was registered only a few days ago, after User:Inferioritycomplexbaldness was blocked. Busy with same topics, mostly about Pirna. Example for working on the same files: File:Aerial Picture Pirna Downtown 2012.jpg (version history). Thanks, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. Эlcobbola _talk 16:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Jayabilla

A self-proclaimed sockpuppet of Jaya8022, an indefinitely-blocked user who has a history of sockpuppeting. Jayabilla has been generally well-behaved on English Wikipedia (for now), but a sock is a sock and it should be blocked. (No, the rhyme was not intentional.) — Gestrid (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yenphung

Please block Yenphung (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for continuing to upload blatant copyright violations with false authorship claims in spite of multiple warnings, including two "final" warnings, even as Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yenphung is going on. Obviously, they're too busy uploading copyright violations to bother commenting on that discussion, so I think it can be closed with the only logical outcome as well. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Uploads deleted and user blocked 2 weeks. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ceiling fan vandal

Please block Branden Deckard (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - vandal sockpuppet with the usual modus operandi. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Come on, this is an image of a skylight, it's clearly shown in this image. Ceiling fan is just a background. Branden Deckard (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft: can you please go into detail? What is the "usual modus operandi"? What did he vandalize and how? --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau: The user is a sockpuppet of the ceiling fan vandal (User:David Beals). The modus operandi is to add pictures of a ceiling fan to unrelated articles (sometimes overwriting existing images), or to spam his ceiling fan videos on YouTube (sometimes using various more or less creative disguises), and then calling attention to his own vandalism (such as by liking a random edit of mine). (Yeah, and when reported, he responds with nonsensical excuses like "the image doesn't depict a ceiling fan" or "the ceiling fan is just a background".) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The user is a cross-wiki vandal on both Wikia and Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Confirmed (as if there was doubt) and blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 21:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft: Thank you for the explanation. I now know what to look out for. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau: It's almost always that same fan hanging from the tan ceiling. I've seen that fan about 50 times... @Mike Rosoft: Feel free to post socks at my talk since I've been dealing with Beals for 3 or 4 years now. I'm almost always at the computer (I'm disabled), so you'll get a quick response. lNeverCry 22:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

He was overwriting images of Trump the other day - couple of socks (blocked & tagged) - User:Iamthenoobguy and User:ThatGuyThatLikes Fans for anybody who is following this nonsense. Nick (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

He's an attention seeker, so he tends to go after images of people that are used in numerous articles, usually politicians/celebs, etc. User:Fæ/BLP overwrites can be useful as can checking unpatrolled newbie uploads. The bad luck with Beals is that his two main IP ranges are busy mobile ranges, so he can sock at will; the good luck is that he wants to be found, so if an overwrite isn't noticed quickly, he'll often report it on a noticeboard or bring it to the attention of an admin on their talk. lNeverCry 00:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Block Request

Please, someone kindly block 龍嶽山川 (talk · contribs). Reason: excessive vandalism. Regards — TBhagat (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 10:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks dear. :) — TBhagat (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Block Request

Kkangjji94 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Someone please block the user. The reason is vandalism-only account. Regards — TBhagat (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Taivo. But watch out – I am almost sure that Ewan0808 is other account of this guy. --jdx ^Re: 16:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Ewan0808 passes the duck test, so I've blocked the account. lNeverCry 23:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

SRT-4 photo

A user uploaded and overwrote the photo for the SRT-4 page in order to force a picture of a non-stock SRT-4 onto the page.

I have reverted this back, however for some reason on the SRT-4 wikipedia page the photo dimensions are all screwed up now, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Does this automatically repair itself over time? Also, can the user in question be given a warning to not overwrite existing files to vandalize pages? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTShadow (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've done a history clean on the file and warned the editor who did the overwrite. As regards the display of the image, you can try purging and refreshing the page or wait 10 minutes or so and try again if that doesn't work. lNeverCry 23:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

+1 in the *151097 serie

Hi,

Please, block User:Davi151097, he upload the same copyrighted materials as the others 151097.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 19#Paula151097 sockpuppet of *151097 series for more --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Storkk. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, they are cleverly disguising themselves now by using "161097" usernames such as Thais161097. Genius! Storkk (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk and Srittau: And one more: User:Ivone151097... --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User: Shipjustgotreal

Please block this user. This is a sock see proof at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shipjustgotreal MLC4U 13:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Kofi lockhart-adams by Lidimentos.jpg

Please protect File:Kofi lockhart-adams by Lidimentos.jpg or block its uploader Lidimentos, who is vandalising the file description (blanking out categories, blanking out the licensing section, removing the information template, tagging the file for speedy deletion for invalid reasons, replacing the categories and licensing section with untrue statements, attempting to add invalid licensing restrictions, and overwriting the file with another image) as well as other pages in some sort of attempt to revoke the irrevocable license they granted because someone exercised the right granted under that license to create derivatives. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done File locked by Storkk. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Megurine Luka

Hi,

Megurine Luka has never upload something else than copyrighted material. If I remember my deletion requests, it's essentially images of en:Megurine Luka, few fan derived works (COM:CHARACTER), and, many official art-works and screen-shots. User talk:Megurine Luka#Copyright violations: Warned and thread of blockage, the user seems to continue. I think this user should be blocked as promised.

Megurine Luka does not work a lot on other projects: Copy of http://vocaloid.wikia.com/wiki/Megurine_Luka on EN user page, link to own sound cloud on Meta-Wiki. If someone know where to ask for a global blockage and think it's worth it, can I be helped?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the user for a week and deleted his/her userpage, which consisted of big now-deleted copyvio image. Taivo (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Upload protection request for File:ElectoralCollege2016.svg

Due to an ongoing EW since November 9, 2016 I request an admin for Upload protection of File:ElectoralCollege2016.svg (and revert to revision as of 21:07, 27 November 2016 done) as there still is no official result for Michigan: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],... I'd suggest a week time. --SI 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done --jdx ^Re: 21:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Vaginal fluid discharge.jpg

Is it still useful to protect this file ? If it's the case, could anyone add Category:Female ejaculation to it ? Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's an old protection, and may have been over-done even then. I've switched to a simple semi-protection on editing, in case any other IPs are drawn to this, which is the usual concern. I've added the cat too. lNeverCry 23:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

This will introduce me as the Registered copyright and trademark agent for The World Tomorrow (radio and television), and President of the Church of God Worldwide, and The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association. THE WORLD TOMORROW is registered with the US Patent, Copyright and Trademark Offices, registration number 3,209,903 - which is conclusive evidence I, Earl Timmons, am the owner and registered user. For some years, I have attempted to upload a title card for to the corresponding Wikipedia page, and it has been rejected, each time. Now, a user Barek, will not honor his promise to assist, as a super editor, with the new upload. It has been uploaded correctly using File Upload Wizard, not COMMONS. All licensing has been granted as own work, PUBLIC DOMAIN. The upload was done correctly and every field double checked for accuracy. I am requesting ANY qualified editor to please add the title card to the article. Thank you. ----worldtomorrowgta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtomorrowgta (talk • contribs) 09:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You have no deleted contributions in Commons and you have uploaded so far only one image: file:THE WORLD TOMORROW.jpg. I suspect, that this is not your own work, and I'll nominate it for regular deletion, which lasts one week. Please comment the request (not here, but on deletion request page). Taivo (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Prior contributions by this user can be found at sock accounts user:TheWorldTomorrow (see duplicate upload at file:TheWorldTomorrow.jpg); user:Superchargedone; and user:Garnerted. The user wants to use the title card on Wikipedia, to illustrate the program Wikipedia:The World Tomorrow (radio and television). Their post above also suggests they don't realize this site is the Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Tagged, blocked, nuked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Davidng913

Davidng913 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for uploading the brand new set of copyvios after 3-day block for a previous one. --Яй (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done by INeverCry. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please re-upload these protected file

Hey, as a part of UI-standardization, I'm trying to use Wikimedia color palette (phab:M82) as much as possible. So I re-uploaded File:Disambig gray RTL.svg with better colors File:Disambig gray RTL color palette.svg. The change is almost unnoticeable. Can you re-upload the main one? It would be great if you that for the main disambig icon too. Amir (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done This is to match a change to the UI color palette by WMF Engineering. Revent^talk 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User Στάθης Πανταζής

Στάθης Πανταζής (talk · contribs) is one more puppet by Πρώτη Σερρών (talk · contribs). --C messier (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done lNeverCry 20:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for File:Keep-calm-and-click-edit.svg

Seems to be an attraction for IPs: 27 August 2016, 2 September 2016, 26 October 2016, 2 December 2016. --SI 06:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Baxter91

Please block User:Baxter91 for repeated copyright violations. They've already had one file deleted, another is marked for copyvio, and I suspect the rest are also copyright violations, too. — Gestrid (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

These are NOT violations! I am the owner of these photos and the person in them. I am new to Wikipedia and have spent 10 hours creating my page and my photos keep getting pulled down. Photos that I OWN. Instead of asking that I be blocked, I am asking for help to navigate this system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter91 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Baxter91 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Baxter91: One of the photos you uploaded (File:Sil Lai Abrams.jpg, now deleted) is a copyright violation of this photo. Another photo, File:Sil Lai Abrams2.jpg, has already been deleted as another copyright violation. — Gestrid (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Baxter91: Please have a look at COM:LICENSE. Uploaded photos must have been photographed by yourself. Taking images from the net or other sources is not permitted. If a photographer gave you explicit permission to publish a photo under any of the terms allowed on here, this permission must be sent via OTRS. Please do not upload files that do not conform to those rules. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid, the photo that you deleted (File:Sil Lai Abrams.jpg is from my corporate website. I am the founder & CEO of Truth In Reality and that is my personal photograph that you deleted. I added it to the site. This is the link you cited as justification: this photo. Please check the About section. How can the photo be restored?

Additionally, the second pic that was deleted is also mine. File:Sil Lai Abrams2.jpg. That is a photograph I commissioned and I gave to Howard University (and any other media outlet that has used it, including Modern Woman magazine, for example) to use in the art materials for the Redefining HERstory Campus Social Action program that I did in conjunction with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter91 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Baxter91 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@gestrid I was just blocked??? How can this be done without giving me an opportunity to defend myself? Can my page be restored? Baxter91 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how you have come to own the copyright of a CNN video (File:Sil Lai Abrams.jpg). You do not own the copyright of a screenshot of work created and owned by a third party, such as CNN. Nick (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(ECx2) @Baxter91: Please have a look at COM:LICENSE and COM:OTRS for the restoration process in this case. But keep in mind that you are legally responsible for all potential copyright violations. Also, you have not been blocked. But please refrain uploading further files that could be seen as copyright violations. Go through COM:OTRS first. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nick Fair enough. I didn't realize that was the case. My apologies re: screenshot of me on CNN. However, the other photo of me that was blocked twice IS mine. File:Sil Lai Abrams2.jpg. Baxter91 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau I have tried accessing my page Baxter91 but it is gone. The other pictures on my page are all mine. Owned. Taken by my camera. This is very frustrating as I am a public figure and many of the photographs in the public domain have been taken by me and uploaded to my personal websites or supplied to other sites that I work with. If the assumption is that any photo that is previously on another website is owned by someone else, I have no chance in using my own photos. Baxter91 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau Thank you for the useful information. Baxter91 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC) @nick @gestrid @nick or anyone who receives this: When I click on my user page File:Baxter91 it says that page doesn't exist. I have been deleted somehow, and I can't find the page that I have been working on creating for the past 10 hours. Can someone help me find this? Baxter91 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I see why you're confused about your draft being deleted. First of all, it isn't deleted. Second, this website is Wikimedia Commons, a sister site to Wikipedia, where your draft, Draft:Sil Lai Abrams, is located. It's where many (though not all) of the images you see on Wikipedia are uploaded to so they can be used there. — Gestrid (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, copyright policy is a little complex, we assume you will have read the introductory text presented to you when uploading works, if you've not read that material fully or found it confusing, we can assist.

The copyright in any image is owned by the photographer, that is, the person who pushes the button to take the photograph, and not, as is often (erroneously perceived) the owner of the camera. The only routine way any camera owner will own photographs of themselves is when they've used the self-timer function.

We're easily capable of dealing of such scenarios, all you need to do is get someone to take your photograph, and get them to e-mail us a declaration which states they're the photographer and that they took the photograph with your camera, and that they're happy to release their rights as the photographer. We do it dozens of times a day, through the COM:OTRS system.

Your draft is on Wikipedia right here Nick (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but since you appear to be trying to do it: To use the ping function, all you need to do is type {{ping|someone's username}}, including the curly braces. For example, typing {{ping|Gestrid}} will appear as "@Gestrid:" when you save the page and will notify me that I have a new message here. If the user that's being pinged has their email notifications setup correctly, they also get an email notification about the ping. — Gestrid (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Baxter91: One thing I would point out as an observer is that since you've had quite a lot of difficulty uploading these files, at least you know without doubt that Wikimedia Commons is very serious about protecting copyright holders. Whether you're the rightful copyright holder or not, you can see that your images are safe here, and that we take copyright very seriously. Have a good night. lNeverCry 10:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Someone's gestrid: , @Someone's nick: @Someone's INeverCry: . Your assistance is appreciated. Okay, here goes a few more questions:

1. If I give some stranger my phone and ask them to take my picture on my phone when I am out somewhere, how can I follow these guidelines to get their permission to use my photo? This is obviously not always possible, since there are many times when I am out at an event or with a group of people and a stranger holds my phone at my request, snaps my pic, then I never see them again. By law, this makes them the copyright holder of my image? I can never get the contact info for a kind stranger at an event who snapped a pic of me at my request on my phone, which would enable Wiki to get an email from them saying they release the image.

2. My modeling composite card has been flagged (for some reason). I don't remember who took the photo, the agency is out of business for over 10 years, the photo is 22 or 23 years old, and I paid for the production of the card - therefore I own it. If it is my legal responsibility to assume liability for the use of a photo, I am willing to do that. Can you please explain how you have handled situations such as these in the past by well-known fashion models who have wiki pages that use old tear sheets in their profile?

3. I have another old photograph (modeling) I was going to use instead if the composite card is deleted. The photographer took the photos, is generally a flaky person all around, I paid for the photos, they are over 20 years old. I have tried reaching out to him over the years, but since my sister died we have drifted apart. He doesn't answer his phone or email EVER, and it is 99.9% certain he will never send an email saying he gives me the rights. In the fashion industry, there are two ways that ownership is determined for a photo. If a model pays for the shoot, the images (which back then were shot on film that was developed into slides that you could view with a loop on a lightbox that had a white surrounding paper holder) would have NO copyright stamp. It was understood that you could use the photos as you saw fit, and the only ask (which still exists today as I still have my photo taken by professional photographers) is that IF the photo is ever used in a magazine that you ask said magazine to give them photo credit. In the event that you did what was called a "test shoot" where an exchange in services occurred - you donate your time and image for the photographer to use and DO NOT pay them for their time in exchange for giving them the rights to the photograph. When they gave you copies of the slides they would be marked with a copyright symbol stating the photographer was the copyright holder. Additionally, they have you sign a waiver stating their ownership of the image and you can only use them for personal purposes such as in your portfolio and composite card. If anyone who saw the image wanted to use it, you would direct them to the photographer, who would either sell the rights to the image to the person. All of this is to say is that these images are mine as I paid for them.

4. I have a trademark attorney that I use for my work with Truth In Reality. If she sends an email stating that I am fully aware of the risks of using these photos (which are mine, LOL), can you allow my personal photos to be used?

5. Last, but certainly not least, I have been barred from uploading any additional photographs to Wikicommons. Can one of you lift that ban. Given this experience around copyrights, the last thing I am doing is uploading a screen shot from a tv or any other type of photo that is not expressly mine. Thank you very much in advance for your help in this matter. I really just need to upload one more photo (for my main profile image) and then submit the article for approval. Baxter91 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. @Someone's gestrid: , @Someone's nick: @Someone's INeverCry: Thank you for volunteering your time to protect the rights of people and copyrights. I can't say that I would have the patience to do this, but realize how important a role all of you play in ensuring that abuse doesn't occur on here, or when it does, that it is addressed swiftly and prudently. It makes my life a little more temporarily stressful, but ultimately is for the greater good. Baxter91 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Baxter91: to ping someone, please remove the someone part. Not: {{ping|someone's INeverCry}} but: {{ping|INeverCry}}

1) If the stranger tells you her/his name, the copyright would expire 70 years after the death of author, not the camera owner. If the author's name (photographer) is unknown, it would expire 120 years after creation. So, yes. Your equipment and not yours to own. Would be the same if I lend you a chisel and you create a statue with it. Why should I get anything out of your work? Besides a dull chisel? :)

2) No, you don't own the intellectual rights. It's just orphaned. Now it's getting interesting. General rule: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

3) Same as above. The photographer can be flaky as phylo, doesn't make any difference. Another real life sample: Buying a magazine doesn't give you the intellectual rights to the contents, nor do you own the design of your car.

4) No, because a trademark attorney will tell you in way better detail the same story. You can't (re)license anything you don't own.

5) As far as I can see, you are not barred from uploading. Please use caution: Is it REALLY yours? Can you present solid evidence? A flaky photographer doesn't cut it. Just a small warning: Ignoring advise, making false statements, uploading unfree media will result in your account being blocked. Not saying you do. I replied to the OTRS-ticket today. Good luck with your draft and enwiki! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Thanks so much for taking the time to explain, and for the well wishes. Baxter91 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Block of Tuvalkin

I've placed a 1-week block on the account of Tuvalkin. In this diff [11] he makes an open and undisguised accusation that Ruthven is a racist because of a mass DR filed against a blocked sock account. This is disgusting. If there was anything to the accusation, it would be concerning. But Ruthven is an advanced Spanish speaker, so the accusation by Tuvalkin that Ruthven quote "doesn't want brown people here in Commons" is sudden and disturbing. Accusations of racism are very serious and nobody should get away with openly making this kind of attack on any user without serious evidence to back up the accusation. I've told Tuvalkin that he can be unblocked immediately if he withdraws that accusation and expressly apologizes to Ruthven. I would also point out that Ruthven's RFA, which Tuvalkin is the only opposer of, is currently running at 23 supports 1 oppose, so my block has nothing to do with that lone oppose vote. lNeverCry 12:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I will start by saying that this is a completely unacceptable comment by Tuvalkin, and their behaviour in recent weeks has deteriorated, there is now a definite and downhill pattern of behaviour. A block is entirely warranted and I think, after the previous incident some two months ago (re mental illness, see [12]) where I (and some others in the community) gave Tuvalkin the benefit of the doubt, this time the block should remain for at least the duration set (1 week).

However, and unfortunately there is a however. INeverCry should not have been the person to place this block, this should have been reported and an uninvolved administrator with no possible conflict of interest left to place the block. The conflict of interest is, as noted by INC, the RfA nomination made by INC and subsequent oppose vote placed by Tuvalkin. Nick (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this block as soon as it happened and reviewed the evidence. Tuvalkin's comments were unacceptable, so I have no challenge to make on the block itself. As with Nick, it's best to avoid potential for later claims of being involved. These situations have occurred a few times where the absence of a policy with regard to never using sysop powers when potentially involved has resulted in an administrator taking action, then leaving a note on AN to cover themselves, rather than informing an independent administrator.

It may be a healthy improvement if Administrators were explicitly to include "They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved" as per en:Wikipedia:Administrators, rather than leaving this to a common understanding of norms, which will always be debatable. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Nick's comments, and the comment at the RFA is a continuation of Tuvalkin's them-and-us battleground mentality which is harmful. However, I fail to see what the policy change suggestion by Fae of "must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved" has to do with this, as I don't see INC "gaining an advantage" -- merely that it is possible he would be "inclined to think negatively of" someone he is in dispute with, and thus not deal with the issue as neutrally as an uninvolved admin. There may well be merit in improving admin guidelines along those suggested, but that's a discussion for another time/forum. -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If there can be seen a conflict of interest in my being the blocking admin, I would suggest that @Nick: or any other admin change the block so that he's the blocking admin, and consider the above my report here to AN.

My sole interest is protecting a Commons user from false allegations of racism which is a serious problem. I don't really care if Ruthven passes the RFA or not; defending him or her from false allegations of racism and making it known that such allegations made against Commons editors with no evidence to substantiate them is much more important than any RFA. I've always been a bitter opponent of any kind of racism, sexism, homophobia/anti-LGBT, religious prejudice, ethnic and nationalistic prejudice, and any other form of cowardly hate. That kind of thing doesn't fly here at Commons, and it's definitely not something we can deal with lightly, whether we're speaking of actual incidents of prejudice, or accusations of such prejudice. As Nick says above, this is a deterioration of Tuvalkin's behavior. I would like to see through this discussion if there is any consensus for a longer block, or for a restriction prohibiting Tuvalkin from participating at COM:DR/COM:RFA if this is the kind of ugly behavior he's going to decend into at these venues. lNeverCry 23:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done reblocking. widely endorsed block. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Looking again at the long and high wall of pure rubbish Tuvalkin's put up at his talk to try and wikilawyer his way around this, I have to say in all honesty and with complete calmness that I think Commons would be better off if Tuvalkin was banned from editing here. I still remember the Tuvalkin I worked with back in 2010/2011, when he was focused on BSicons. Then in 2012 he started working on DRs and being rude quite often. This has gotten worse over time. Now recently we get this racism garbage. I think Tuvalkin is a net negative and will chase good editors away from Commons until we finally say enough is enough and do what's right for the community. lNeverCry 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with INC. This anti-deletionist battleground mentality has got to the point where falsely accusing people of racism is the basis of a keep vote. Time for an indefinite block. Perhaps, at some future point, Tuvalkin might recalibrate his attitude, but for now this attitude problem is a "net negative" as INC says. -- Colin (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef - If Tuválkin believes Ruthven is a racist they know what to do and it certainly isn't to go around various DRs or whatever throwing around accusations, The editor clearly has a BATTLEGROUND attitude and warnings & short blocks don't achieve anything (their blocklog proves my point!) so IMHO they should be blocked per NOTHERE with talkpage access revoked, I'm usually all for second chances but this editor has had 7 lives and there's no sign of them changing their attitude anytime soon, It's about time something was done and that time is now. –Davey2010^Talk 03:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support indef — I would be happy not to have to read this name anywhere on Commons anymore, as well as their highly dispensable comments. --A.Savin 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I oppose using indefs as if they were bans, they are not. A ban is inappropriate based on this event. Tuvalkin used some angry language that they should not have done, and a block was appropriate and we can consider a series of escalating blocks if Tuvalkin's behaviour continues once this block expires.

All contributors must be supported by understandable procedures if they feel there is a case to make for a pattern of actions from an account, which appears to be deliberately disruptive on racist grounds, both in line with Commons policies, the wmf:Terms of use or wmf:Non discrimination policy. Any contributor should be free to raise concerns of this type without fear of censorship or action simply for whistle blowing. Tuvalkin's correct process should have been to step away from the locus of the incident (the DR) and instead of engaging in direct argument, raised the evidence of the pattern they were concerned about on the AN noticeboard, or by approaching an administrator they trusted. What needs to be advised and repeated, is that complaints must be strongly supported by evidence, and the evidence has to be convincing enough to speak for itself. Had this been done, then an examining administrator would probably have advised that what Tuvalkin was seeing as a suspect pattern of deletions of certain races of people, was in fact a process of raising deletions for uploads by dubious sock accounts, which coincidentally were all these types of photographs (I'm basing this viewpoint on looking through some of the DRs raised by Ruthven in the last 5 months). The pattern was worth looking at, as the repeated deletion request was unusual, but Tuvalkin should have paid more attention to the nomination, which did highlight the new evidence of sockpuppeting.

It should never be the case that fear of using imprecise language to express these concerns, stops them from ever being raised. This is doubly true on Commons where users are not expected or required to have good English language skills. The responsibility is the community's to ensure sufficiently open and safe spaces exist, for users with legitimate concerns to raise them. I have emphasised "open" as it would be a serious mistake for complaints of apparent acts of racism, homophobia or misogyny to only ever be possible to discuss on IRC or by private closed channels unless the incident is serious enough to require legal action.

Lastly, those commenting here who have never been targets of irrational hatred due to their race, religion, sex or sexuality; you are lucky to live at a time and place where this is possible. Those of us that have experienced these things in our lives have good reason to value systems of laws that offer protection and understand that free speech includes the right to lobby against hateful speech or hateful action. If you think I'm a poor reference, then I suggest you consider Jee's comment on Tuvalkin's user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a pretty soft reading of the facts in Tuvalkin's favor. Accusations of Racism are very serious. Any kind of discrimination (which I myself have suffered due to disability) is something that can never be taken lightly. Tuvalkin in the linked deletion requests states without any doubt that Ruthven "doesn't want brown people on Commons" and that "he should just admit it".

No editor of Commons should be either the victim of discrimination or accusations of racism that are untrue. The term above "imprecise language" sounds like I'm listening to some politician from the US trying to explain their way out of making some ignorant racist statement.

Tuvalkin can't just say it was really about sockpuppetry and related sock accounts, and that his blatant accusation of racism (made in a very suggestive way, rather than a straight-forward accusation) was just an oversight that should be overlooked. Ruthven is not a racist. Any suggestion that such is the case should be backed up by clear evidence. Tuvalkin has produced none. Of all people, Fæ, who I respect very much, knows that I don't tolerate any kind of racism, homophobia or any discrimination. Back when Fæ uploaded his 500,000th edit as a photo celebrating his pride as an LGBT man, I had to defend him from Badmachine and several other people who attacked him due to his openly being LGBT. These attacks were quickly fought off, and Fæ got to celebrate a special day for him the way he deserved to.

I felt good that I was able to come to his defense and I would do the same for any Commons user. I've seen serious racist/anti-religious attacks like [13] this one made by Grawp. By accusing Ruthven of racist activity, Tuvalkin is making a much more serious accusation than he perhaps realizes. Ruthven doesn't deserve to be victimized in this way. While I realize that Tuvalkin is an experienced and productive user, and I would prefer to see him retract his accusations and apologize for them, rather than be blocked for them, this kind of behavior can't be allowed to pass without serious consequences

As I said, this really surprised me. I've seen Tuvalkin make plenty of comments that have been snarky, rude, and insulting, I've never seen him make serious accusations as he did here. If he were to say that he read the situation wrong and that he apologizes sincerely for the accusations, that would be the best outcome we could have.

If he lets these accusations stand as they are, he should either present evidence to prove his accusations, or, if he's unable to do so, he should be indefinitely banned/blocked from Commons. Otherwise we, as the Commons community, are letting Ruthven down and not standing up for him 100% as we should be. A 1 week block is nowhere near an even punishment to Tuvalkin for making accusations of racism that he can't prove or substantiate. lNeverCry 14:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

INC, you're right if Tuvalkin is explicitly targeting Ruthven alone. But that comment looks to me like a generic attack against many s/he consider as "deletionists". I would like to here first, how s/he responds to my comment. I think we can forgive this time, if s/he acknowledge the mistake. Moreover, Christmas is coming! Jee 15:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I have to respectfully disagree with you here. If you look at this comment by Tuvalkin, you'll see that Tuvalkin even makes a point of saying he's referring directly to Ruthven. Tuvalkin says, and I quote "Look, you (and I mean Ruthven in this discussion and many other users in other DRs) don’t want brown people in Commons?< I get that, as I’ve seen so many attempted deletions with thinly veiled arguments. But at least make a new argument and admit it". Ruthven doesn't deserve to have his good name ran through the mud, and, since any accusation like this is obviously going to upset the accused, he doesn't deserve that upset and frustration at being falsely accused. Ruthven is and always has been a great editor, and making false accusations against him are serious. Tuvalkin has to know that he's not just going to get a slap on the wrist when he does things like this. lNeverCry 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

INC, I agree with you, "Ruthven doesn't deserve to have his good name ran through the mud." I remember a case when somebody said about one of my colleague that he is not qualified to close a deletion request, considering his real-life profession/education. I protested and the user replied it was not his intention and we were happy to accept that statement and move on. So what I'm saying is, we need to evaluate the intention than merely what was said. We need to give some time for Tuvalkin towxplain his/her stand. Yesterday I saw another sarcastic comment of Tuvalkin here. S/he must stop this behavior or find the exit door. But I don't see an immediate need to dismiss him with an indefinite ban/block. Note that I didn't oppose this block; only opposing a stronger, further action. You can see on his/her talk page that I well explained that Commons has no history of discouraging brown people or such media. Yes; I belongs to them and never experienced a discrimination. Discrimination is neither acceptable; nor the use of such a property (ethnicity here) to get advantage in a discussion (as Tuvalkin did here). But the solution is to dismiss such attempts with well founded reply; not the person himself. Jee 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

INeverCry, I'm not going to respond to the specifics here, as I am uncomfortable with opening up old personal cases of past harassment that are unrelated to this incident. I suggest you take the same path. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: I can understand if you don't want to rehash specifics. I won't do so. My point in bringing that old incident up here is this: anti-LGBT haters tried to attack you on a special day for you, and I was able to help fight off that effort. I like to remember that I was able to help protect you from homophobic, disgusting prejudice. I remember how that felt, and it was very rewarding. It was one of my best moments here. I feel the same way about Ruthven. I don't intend to stand by while he gets attacked. The other element regarding you and I, and the gay pride photo, is that for me it's much better to think of that time than to think of the stupid and ridiculous block I put on your account later. One is uplifting, the other is something I did without giving it a thought and which I wish I hadn't done, and am still regretful and embarrassed about. lNeverCry 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no parallel to be drawn between Tuvalkin's angry words and the case you mention. It is inappropriate to reference an old and exceptionally hateful extreme case of personal attacks against me, for what appears to be a rhetorical argument. Please address the case in hand, rather using me as a tangent.

The Commons community needs to provide systems to moderate those that create a hostile environment for others. For the same reasons the Commons community needs to ensure that any contributor can bring forward complaints against patterns of actions that appear to be hostile to any minority group. Tuvalkin has been blocked for a week and can be advised on correct procedures for how to raise complaints of this type in the future without being perceived as attacking other users.

It is far too common a pattern on Wikimedia projects that those with complaints about apparent racism, religious prejudice, homophobia and misogyny are rapidly marginalized, blocked or banned for harassing other users, in preference to educating the contributor on how best to raise complaints in a way that will be taken seriously and investigated by someone independent of the immediate issue. Tuvalkin was wrong for their specific actions, they are not wrong to waive a red flag for investigation. Even if you believe Tuvalkin was doing this for bad reasons, a sensibly run community investigation sets a good example for other contributors to raise concerns in a mellow way.

Unfortunately, anyone can see from the way I have been treated in a hostile and personal manner in this discussion, which seems intended to introduce pointless tangential argument and put me off from putting a logical case that helps understand Tuvalkin's behaviour, shows that the community's approach to these issues is immature and is just as likely to attack the individual with a complaint rather than addressing underpinning issues of better governance and factual and policy based responses from administrators rather than knee-jerk emotive responses. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: Incredibly hateful? I blocked you with the rationale that you were a sockpuppet of Russavia. That's stupid and childish but hardly incredibly hateful. Please draw down on the dramatic victim language.I've never done anything to you that was "incredibly hateful".

I am drawing attention to the fact that my behavior toward you in blocking you was inappropriate, uncalled for, and is something I truly regret. I compared it with what I'm still very proud of which is that I was once able to defend you, and do the right thing. I'm comparing one side of my behavior with that of Tuvalkin; his attack on Ruthven was calculated and offensive. There was nothing innocent on Tuvalkin's side. I don't know why you're defending him so hard. Ruthven is the victim here not Tuvalkin. There was no misunderstanding. Tuvalkin is a highly intelligent individual. He made his attack on Ruthven for the same reason I put in place that fake block on you: I knew what would upset you and in this case Tuvalkin knew what to throw at Ruthven to get under his skin.

I mention my defense of you against Badmachine not because I've had a change of heart or that I consider you a friend. I haven't. I know just what kind of person you are. You're manipulative, you misrepresent incidents and the positions and stances of the people involved, and you always turn things around to where you're the victim and anyone else who disagrees with you is the devil himself. You say above "an old and exceptionally hateful extreme case of personal attacks against me". I accused you of socking for Russavia. Where is the "exceptionally hateful extreme case of personal attacks against you"? You just hope people won't look closer at what you say, or the whole house of cards falls right down.

You do the same thing when you respond to Colin. He's hasn't intimidated or harassed you at all. What he's really done is to tell it like it is, way to many times and in way to many cases. He's got you pegged down so you've got to try the old trick of discrediting him or pretending some horrible hate attacks have been made against you. But it's just like the accusation you make against me above. Once you really look at what Colin is saying about you and your pathological dishonesty, your positions and stories start to fall apart. It doesn't surprise me at all that you're defending Tuvalkin. Birds of a feather stick together.

There's no being friends with you Fae. You know very well that the worst thing I ever did was to block you simply as a sock of another editor. A block that nobody at all, not even one person ever believed. And yet in your world that becomes an " exceptionally hateful extreme case of personal attacks against me". People need to watch out. If you're defending Tuvalkin than he really deserves an indef block. lNeverCry 14:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I clearly was referring to the case of harassment that you introduced, not your incorrect block of my account. I neither mentioned your action, nor was referring to it. Please take time to re-read my post. There is no need to make personal comments, please do not do that. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I certainly did misread this. The personal comments came from the misreading. Quite embarrassing and regrettable. My apologies. lNeverCry 10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you claim Tuvalkin was "not wrong to waive a red flag for investigation", then please present the evidence that justifies calling fellow contributors here racist and please present the evidence of a problem with DRs of "brown people". I'm afraid that the fact Tuvalkin is blocked suggests the consensus does not agree with your interpretation. "Raising concerns" as a way to attack others is your modus operandi so no suprise you see you defend your friend Tuvalkin with the same falsehood.

You say there is a "common pattern" to "rapidly marginalize, block or ban" users who make complaints. I assume you mean genuine complaints raised in good faith and with the sound evidence you now state is required. Can you please list them for us to investigate and know the veracity of your serious allegation.

My comments (below) are not "tengential". It is most interesting that Tuvalkin was blocked for making a single false complaint of racism yet you made dozens of false allegations of homophobia, false complaints of being stalked, attacking with insults like "creep" and yet nothing happens, and you now have the temerity to lecture us all on correct proceedures and the need for strong evidence or the dangers of jumping to bad faith conclusions. It is long past time that Commons recognised your problem behaviour using these false allegations to attack people you dislike, and the harm this does to the project for those with genuine concerns about discrimination and such. I once again insist this Community stops being complicit in permitting Fae to use such bad faith allegations and defamatory comments as personal attacks. Tuvlakin's behaviour is remarkably similar to his friend Fae's behaviour and Fae's excluses of raising red flags for investigation is remarkably similar to his own excuses for making personal attacks. Both should be sitting together on the naughty step. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not replying to any one person. I offered Tuvalkin the opportunity to make a detailed report about their concerns of racism in Deletion Review requests, and this was the response I received [14]. I also suggested possible reasons for their perceptions but that too was rebuffed. Nick (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Wrt to Tuvalkin's responses, see en:Texas sharpshooter fallacy and similar. If one starts with the bad faith assumption that one's deletionist opponents are bad people, probably racist, then one will find patterns that appear to support this. This is so similar to previous bad faith allegations of homophobic bias at Featured Pictures and Pictures of the Day, based on a very poor understanding of statistics coupled with a huge dollop of bad faith. The problem isn't so much that people are generally not very good at spotting their statistical incompetences, and lack training in such, but the bad faith assumption that drives the allegations. COM:AGF says "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence". Futher, asside from any potential systemic problem at DR, to state, as Tuvalkin did, that a specific person "[doesn’t] want brown people in Commons" is quite a horrendous allegation and needs the most robust and daming evidence. Much like would be required to claim a specific person "censored" and voted "oppose" on an image because it was a gay subject or because it was by a gay photographer or because it was nominated by a gay user, rather than because it contained full frontal nudity with obvious genitalia, and was clearly incompetely focussed. We are absolutely required by policy to find good faith reasons for what we see in others actions, and only reject them when the evidence otherwise becomes overwhelming. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It is woefully incorrect to dismiss this as "Tuvalkin used some angry language". He clearly and repeatedly made an allegation of racism against one editor and added to this with allegations of systemic bias: "the epidemy of DRs disproportionally directed against photos of brown people". I'm flabbergasted that Fae of all editors, should get on his high horse to lecture the community on how to make allegations and the folly of jumping to incorrect conclusions based on inadequate evidence or misunderstanding. This is the editor who conducted a long-running campaign alleging the censorship of gay artworks, of suppressing an image nominated by a openly gay person, falsely claiming that there were no LGBT featured pictures and that this was due to a deeply unpleasant underlying cultural problem with those reviewing images, that the project was shaming LGBT contributors into the closet, that users were attacking the gay guy, that Picture of the Day has heteronomative bias, and that LGBT volunteers were having problems contributing. Fae lectures us that "What needs to be advised and repeated, is that complaints must be strongly supported by evidence, and the evidence has to be convincing enough to speak for itself." Ha! Is this hypocrisy or a change of heart. If the latter, I sincerely look forward to no further personal attacks coming from Fae made without the slightest evidence or basis in fact. -- Colin (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just step in to clarify some stuff, as it is "my special day". I didn't wrote before on this topic because it's my policy not to feed the troll, and here it's clearly the case of an abusive user that accused without thinking nor even reading past user's history. I am sorry to disagree with you, Fæ, but we don't want to guarantee to such users the right to defend anything, even minorities, because it's clearly a way to express an aggressive behaviour, with no regard nor respect for the cause he's defending (BTW, the non-native english speaker here is me). No thinking, no reading, no showing proof of a general drift that Commons is taking toward racism, so the comment wasn't useful at all even for the community. Here the accusations of "racism" and "deletionism" were made without considering that 1) I was proposed as sysop by lNeverCry also because of active in COM:UDEL (opposite of deletionist, right?), 2) Tuvalkin here, instead of seeing a watermark and a possible copyviol, saw a colour of skin (thing that I didn't even thought of!), raising the question of who's obsessed with "races" and discrimination here. I feel that Wikimedia projects do not have to be the battleground for user's frustrations, which should be independent wrt helping the community growing showing its problems, even in a clumsy way.

As I'd rather not write on this topic on a public discussion page again, as there is a certain conflict of interest; I invite you to write me on my discussion page if you have questions or want some clarification. Thanks. PS: Ruthven is a man ;) --Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. As I highlighted, I did look at your contributions and found no issue, including the DR nomination being in good faith. Neither do I contest that the block on Tuvalkin was justified. --Fæ (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Support undef. block. There is a time when we need to act, to preserve Commons working place from attacks and harassment. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• "I am the colour of those who are persecuted." Alphonse de Lamartine (Toussaint Louverture, 1850). One also has to identify who are the persecuted and persecutors...and some times are easier than others. Therefore I don't oppose an increase of the block. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Personally I am not racist, and as for Ruthven, having known him for a while on it.wikipedia, I can testify that he has lot of flaws :-)) but he's not racist for sure.
  Nor I have hint of any racist or racial use of deletions on Commons, for this reason I am just curious to know why Tuvalkin finds a racist pattern in the RfDs.
  As partial discard to Tuvalkin, I must admit that years ago I accused an admin that refused to delete a demeaning flag of Italy to hold prejudices against the Italians, but with time I learnt that wherever we are tempted to see racism or prejudice often is bad judgment. He failed to delete the flag as he should have been doing, and I was wrong to suppose he had a prejudice towards Italians.
  Yet I don't know why Tuvalkin has gone into that downward spiral. The only suitable explanation for this behaviour pattern is that he's sick and tired of a long lasting relationship and is pushing the other to drop him rather than simply leave... It happens this way even in real life. :/ -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment My 2 sentimos on the indef block proposal, I don't think an indef block is needed since not all Tuvalkin's contributions are bad. I don't know Tuvalkin much honestly, so I might be missing something. A one-year ban from DRs is enough. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily want to see Tuvalkin gone for good either. I've been working with him for a long time, and I know that he's an experienced and competent editor in many areas. But I don't want to see him poisoning Commons either. I doubt he would agree to a whole year away from DR, though that is a pretty good suggestion. lNeverCry 10:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Blocking a good-faith long-time contributor for one incident it's not the best sollution. Maybe a topic ban, with restriction of involving in any discussion on any page in "Commons" and "Commons_talk" namespaces, for one year, it's more appropriate. --XXN, 13:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @XXN: This is far from being his first incident. have you looked at his block log? And that's just the shit he didn't get away with. lNeverCry 14:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  It's not about a specific topic ban but the necessity not to type and post in blindmode while angry. Tuvalkin can be a big pain in the ass, that's a fact. I do value his work in trains categories and PT related stuff. But he really needs to calm down a lot, at some point the damage is done and that's the end of it. I have seen that many times, users got third, fourth, [...] twelfth chances. Along the line the community loses interest and the indef block comes down and stays. It would be a pity tho. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Definitely not the first incident: [15]. I agree Tuvalkin has been a valuable contributor, and while I don't necessarily agree with an indef block, keeping him away from DR for a good long time seems an appropriate action. --Rrburke (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• In case you haven't noticed, Tuvalkin have apologized 4 days ago on his talk page. I believe he is sincere, as he admitted his mistakes. He is a human. I would like to advise Tuvalkin to take a break from DRs for a week. There are a lot of things that can be done here on Commons, like photographing, participating at COM:FP, COM:QI, and COM:VI, making PNGs transparent, converting JPGs to PNG (or SVG, but don't forget to remove the noise and artifacts due to JPG compression), and lots more. I am not discouraging Tuvalkin from DRs, but encouraging to engage on happier tasks I stated above. I hope we can all move on from this, as there are a lot of things to do, like deleting never-ending copyvios, closing never-ending DRs, blocking and nuking never-ending socks, performing never-ending cleanup, taking photos of a subject in demand, and solving never-ending dramuh. To end, I  Support an unblock for Tuvalkin (although it will expire today). What do you guys think? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Nicolle Oh5541

Nicolle Oh5541 (talk · contribs) has resumed uploading non-free files after previously being blocked for the same behavior. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed, given the previous 1 month block. Feel free to reduce the block duration. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User Zinyaw San, Zinyaw Chan, Zinyaw Kun

• Zinyaw San (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Zinyaw Chan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Zinyaw Kun (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

All three accounts uploaded similar copyvio/unsourced/unlicensed videos. Zinyaw Kun and Zinyaw Chan had already been blocked for one week. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 16:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I blocked Chan and San indefinite as socks. Kun's block length has not been changed. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Deleted all obvious copyvios, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zinyaw Kun for the rest. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau: Zinyaw Nichan seems to be sock puppet of the same master. Also this link may be helpful. --jdx ^Re: 17:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Blocked that and indefed Zinyaw Kun as well. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:長岡外史

This user has repeated copyright violations. Please see many deletion records in User talk:長岡外史. --Ralth Galth (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:John CS

Indefed this user as a sockpuppet User:Mission Kashmir III, a user that starts DRs as a form of vandalism. Cf User talk:Srittau#Vandals are back. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For further discussion, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Possible sockpuppets of Mission Kashmir III. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Super block of Livio removed

I've removed it. If someone wants to put it back, you'll have to desysop me first. I'm tired of getting stonewalled. He's had 2 appeals, and both have gotten archived. He had a 1-week block. He was then blocked to order by a small gang on FPC. From 1 week he went to a 6-month block. I give Tuvalkin a 1 week block for racist bullshit, and he's off the hook within hours from now. Is that a fair deal? I don't think so. I know it isn't. There's my move. Have at me. lNeverCry 02:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• My message to Livio on Wikipedia:

  Hi Livio. I just wanted to let you know I've removed your unfair block on Commons. I'm ready to lose my adminship for the principle of it. How can I, as an admin, see an unfair block; see a person appealing a block and being ignored, and just say nothing and do nothing? How can I be an admin and allow something I consider unfair to continue on without doing anything to change it? If I have to do that, then being an admin just isn't worth it to me. My heart has to be free from fear. Fear of losing adminship, fear of the people who blocked you, fear of anything. Why be on Commons, If I have to be afraid of what I do, and the normal ways of appeal are unfairly prescribed. Tuvalkin can say sorry, and his blocklog is way longer than yours, and people say: yeah give him another chance, he's a human being he makes mistakes. And what about you? You're a human being and deserve a second chance too. We'll see how it goes. If they desysop me again, I'll just do some regular stuff, and not worry about it. If you do get a second chance now, it's up to you what you do with it. Whatever you do is all up to you. You're a grown man, and it's all up to you. I just think you should have that chance after 3 months of being blocked. I did this for both of us. Take care.

I just wanted to add this here because I'll probably be asleep and unable to respond to anything until late tomorrow. I will keep Livio unblocked as long as I'm an admin and he doesn't re-offend. lNeverCry 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info To avoid confusion, this relates to account Livioandronico2013 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record:  Agree --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 10:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hedwig in Washington, I noticed in the previous discussion Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 19#User:Livioandronico2013 that you said " I won't oppose unblocking, as long as the blocking admin, in this case INC, agrees." In fact User:A.Savin was the blocking admin and this is very much a long running problem with INC unblocking Livio against community consensus and as part of a feud with A.Savin. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case I redact my archived comment and renew my support. Yikes, gotta be careful whatcha archive here --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 13:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry, you have my full  Support - Jcb (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 59#Unfair block by A.Savin and
• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 19#User:Livioandronico2013.

Livio was blocked by User:A.Savin and this block has previously been undone by User:INeverCry without attempting to gain Community consensus and while making personal attacks on the blocking admin. INC was forced to restore his block after clear community consensus that the block should not have been lifted and strong criticism of INC including the comment by User:Natuur12: "Don't get me wrong, I highly respect INC but unblocking against consensus while being involved is one of the most severe mistakes an admin can make. Forgivable, but still severe". Others involved in that discussion were Benh, Ikan Kekek, Jee, Code, The Photographer, Steinsplitter, Diliff, Jebulon, User:Daniel Case, Christian Ferrer, Elcobbola, User:Nick, and more. These people are described above as "a small gang on FPC" as though we are thugs? It is FPC where Livio caused problems and so FPC regulars who give their opinions.

Livio's appeals were not "stonewalled" (please look up the definition of that word). We had a discussion less than a month ago where there were several contributors and no consensus for unblocking. So this is yet another case where INC has unblocked Livio without attempting first to gain community consensus. If he knew his unblock would have consensus then why all the dramatics above about blackmailing the community with his admin bit. I see nothing to indicate that Livio has accepted what he did was wrong, rather I see him protest (along with INC) about the unfair admin who blocked him. This whole episode is contaminated with INC making personal attacks on A.Savin, and I have no doubt INC would have respected the block if it had been made by someone else who he respects.

We have here a clear case of misuse of tools. INC was clearly "unblocking against consensus": he knew he did not have consensus on 8th November and his comments above show he decided to unblock unilaterally and knowing he was misbehaving. Perhaps the community now does not care about Livio's block and would support it being lifted. If that was the case INC should have asked. And regardless, INC should not be the admin to lift it: he is involved and in dispute with the blocking admin. Above, Nick criticises INC for blocking Tuvalkin while involved, and here INC unblocks while involved and in full knowledge he did not have consensus. I suggest INC restores the block and follows the correct procedure for removing a contentious block: of gaining community consensus first.

Admins must respect community, not overrule them. I'm very disappointed in INC's actions here. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if the unblock was justified (and I myself think the length was extreme, even though I am not familiar with Livio's history with FPC), INC clearly knew this would be contentious, and did it unilaterally anyhow. It should have been discussed first. Revent^talk 13:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Er... take my agreement with the caveat that I do not think that it is acceptable to speculate on on what someone 'would' do, or their motivations. Colin is still 'right'. Revent^talk 13:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This is another 'involved' action from INeverCry which shows their complete inability to understand and appropriately handle their conflicts of interest or involvement.
Administrators are allowed to disagree with community consensus, but they are not allowed to circumvent or ignore community consensus. It's time for INeverCry's de-RfA request, for which I believe we need to discuss (probably here) first before the formal part of the process - the 'vote'. Nick (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nick -- is this page the best one for any such community discussion prior to de-RFA. Wouldn't the AN or AN/U be better, since we aren't discussing a block. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I just wondered if this would be sufficient discussion to then lead to the de-RFA, and we wouldn't need to have an extensive discussion prior to the de-RFA. The policy is rather vague, unfortunately, just saying De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible. which could be interpreted in a couple of ways (either way though is fine with me). Nick (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The user livo is an excellent photographer and possibly he was well on his way to correcting his behavior, however, unfortunately INC is encouraging inappropriate user behavior. --The Photographer 13:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I am no longer watching any of AN forums; I was pinged here and all I have to say now is: I would like to thank Colin once again for speaking the inconvenient truth, I fully encourage anyone who wants to initiate a desysop vote against INC, and I would support it at any time for a wide variety of reasons, with this ignorant unblock being just a tiny peak of the LTA iceberg. In case the desysop is started and I missed it, I'd appreciate if someone lets me know. Thanks. --A.Savin 16:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this decision to unblock Livio after 3 months - and in fact, as I previously indicated, I would have supported a much shorter block (2 weeks) - but the procedure of one admin taking that upon himself, so as to act as if in the role of dictator, or if you prefer, loose cannon, and in the process, attacking all others who took part in previous discussions, is much more important to oppose than the unblocking decision is to support or oppose. I absolutely do not think a person who refuses to operate using normal procedures and consensus should ever be an admin, and I, too, would support de-sysoping INC for this action. Note that he literally asked for it. Please ping me as well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Shame on you! You should have been the one to have lifted this absurd block long before, this 6 month block was way out of proportion. I am very sorry to see that you rather create a hostile environment for one of our best admins, than admitting your own mistakes. Jcb (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jcb, shame on you for blaming A.Savin for INC's de-admin. This is nothing to do with the block, wise or otherwise, but about respecting community consensus. If you feel the block was "way out of proportion" then you should have raised this and/or commented at the previous community discussions. And I disagree with your comment that A.Savin "created a hostile environment", when this Livio block has in fact resulted in continued hostility from INC to A.Savin, including personal attacks he's been required to retract. This is a mess of INC's own doing, and absolutely no blame is due to A.Savin. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate the comments for and against my actions. I've asked to have my sysop bit removed for the last time. I'll leave the situation with Livio in the hands of the community. I don't think I'm fit for adminship anymore. My sincere apologies for any disruption and conflict I've caused. I need to get back to doing the steady everyday work that I enjoy and that helps Commons. This kind of drama obviously isn't helpful for anyone. I wish Livio good luck and I hope to see him around for a long time to come, participating in a relaxed way, which is exactly what I intend to do going forward. If anyone ever sees another RFA from me, please oppose it! Take care, and again my apologies for this mess of mine and others. I've got to step back and take a breath. lNeverCry 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to lNeverCry,Jcb,and Jee but unfortunately if you feel that people like User:A.Savin or Colin are of balanced people that they can be stewards then we are really screwed! I sincerely do not understand this hatred, genuinely an administrator should be a balanced person. boh...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to understand A.Savin blocked me without telling me, without cause for six months by a block (always his)of a week and this is right? INeverCry releases me after three months when more people said that was too long and this is wrong? Here something is not working right--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock accounts - AdnanAliAfzal

Please block:

• 085!S! (talk · contribs)
• Hack iT (talk · contribs)
• Fly Up (talk · contribs)
• Adnan Siddi (talk · contribs).

Sockpuppets of blocked user AdnanAliAfzal (talk · contribs), see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal. Also, repeated copyright violations and misuse as private photo album. GermanJoe (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done nuked and blocked. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 13:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:It's me.jpg

This file has been created 5 times with outside the Project scope content. Is possible to permanently fully protect this file against creation? Or a better solutionis creating an Abuse filter rule? --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I support protecting the filename, but only after deletion of the file, as I explained in the DR. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 13:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Please also fully protect File:It's me.JPG (with JPG uppercase). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

…and  Done --Ruthven (msg) 18:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Benzoyl

This user has repeated copyright violations. Please see many deletion records in User talk:Benzoyl. --Ralth Galth (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Most of the DRs are not because copyright violation, but because scope. And in my opinion most of the photos should be kept. The photos are transferred from Flickr and they have free license. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that at least warning by administrator to User:Benzoyl is necessary. I suggested it at User_problems.--Ralth Galth (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think a warning is warranted, go ahead to issue it. There is no point waiting for admin to do so. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Many Japanese users think User:Benzoyl is a problematic user. (So he/she became indefinitely blocked user at ja.wikipedia.) But in Wikimedia Commons, we have to tell in English. It is difficult for Japanese to communicate in English. Me too.--Ralth Galth (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to tell you that there are a lot of copyright violations by User:Benzoyl. But I'm en-1 level user. So, I list up.

• File:Minimal underwear for men designed by porn actor Taka Kato.jpg
• File:Christian Riese Lassen advertising posters in the Japanese train.jpg
• File:Tokyo Pro Baseball on Television in 1967.jpg
• File:Burger King's KURO-NINJA black buns colored by Bamboo Charcoal in 2013.jpg
• File:Attendance Criterion of Doze.jpg
• File:TV Program AD Poster at Shinjuku Station Square.jpg
• File:A small present soshina by Video Research in 2007.jpg
• File:LUMINE EST in 25 March 2014.jpg
• File:Cool TA Q BIN (8503026296).jpg
• File:「注意！街灯周辺ではゆりかもめのフンにご注意ください。」(佃大橋) (3956552421).jpg
• File:ごはんですよ!入り納豆 (410382292).jpg
• File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
• File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
• File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2006 (2243895217).jpg
• File:The bronze monuments of Antarctic expedition 15 Sakhalin huskies at the base of Tokyo Tower 2008.jpg
• File:FRESHNESS BURGER's Liberation Wrapper printed with female's ochobo mouth.jpg
• File:The Perfect Vending Machine in 2006.jpg
• File:カップ麺の棚 (6194953019).jpg
• File:献花台 (5071132931).jpg
• File:下痢止め (1205969566).jpg
• File:Takarakuji Asakusa 2006 (2243959669).jpg
• File:MORINAGA ICE CREAM (2244540884).jpg

(from User talk:Benzoyl/log1)

These are files uploaded by Benzoil and deleted due to copyright violation (including COM:DW, COM:FOP#Japan, COM:PACKAGING) . These are not all of them. Do you think that these are few? Do I need to write more?--Ralth Galth (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Again. Benzoyl is an established editor, with 180k edits. When uploading material from Flickr, a certain level of problematic images are to be expected, and you cite finer points of copyright law. ANB is for immediate, obvious blocks. You should attempt to educate the editor, through engagement on his talk page, or make a case for systemic abuse at COM:AN/U. Revent^talk 11:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I will talk on his/her talk page and COM:AN/U.--Ralth Galth (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User:DanMarcal

I blocked this user due to continued vandalism on Yann's userpage. Posting this here for review as I am the same person who did the rollback three times. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Good, quite lenient block. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is my review: why only 2 hours? Seriously. It seems to be spam/self-promotion/vandalism-only account. Also I can't imagine myself that someone could blame you for this block. --jdx ^Re: 11:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

lol, feel free to lengthen it if he comes back --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Faizanalivarya

I suggest User:Faizanalivarya should be blocked because despite of warning, the user keep on uploading copyright images to Commons. --Saqib (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done at this point. User had two uploads since 2014, one which was uploaded in January and deleted as a copyright violation, one which has been kept as PD-textlogo. No preventative action required at this point, but we should monitor the situation. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

BLP abuse

Protection and an account block may be needed, see File:NehaDhupia (cropped).jpg. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done User warned for now. Can be blocked if needed. Yann (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Indef-blocked, as CU-confirmed SP of Mriduls.sharma[16]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There are more Mriduls.sharma accounts, I just notified User_talk:INeverCry#Deleting_overwrites on three socks. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that INC isn't available for admin tasks, so could a passing by admin block the following socks of the same user and delete the overwrite uploads (copyvios)?

1. Arjun Kapoor 85 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
2. BoneyK (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
3. L.D. White (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Info A reminder that BLP overwrites is a handy way of spotting poor overwrites and especially these types of porn-image attacks, often targeted at images being used in Wikipedia articles about women actors. This is how I spotted the above image within a few minutes of the vandalism occurring. --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File unblock request

The dispute for File:Visa policy of Malaysia.png has been inactive for a very long time and during that period of time, Malaysian visa policy has changed. So this file is good for unblock.--Whisper of the heart (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Whisper of the heart: Unblocked for registered users. Go ahead with your updates. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: I still cannot upload new versions for this file, did you unblock that? --Whisper of the heart (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Whisper of the heart: You should be able to upload new version according to the protection settings. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's okay now, thanks.--Whisper of the heart (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ceiling fan vandal

Please block Dennischand1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - vandal sockpuppet account (sockmaster: User:David Beals) with the usual modus operandi (uploaded a picture of a ceiling fan: File:Recessed lights on ceiling.jpg; then added it to en:Recessed light, the probable excuse being that there are recessed lights next to the ceiling fan and therefore the image is relevant; finally, called attention to his edits on my talk page). (Also pinging @INeverCry: per request on my previous report.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The ceiling fan is just a background. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.146.88.245 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Triplov

Please block Triplov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for accepting this challenge. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

36.66.42.250

36.66.42.250 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user – open proxy being abused by block-evading sockpuppeteer. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Next: 165.193.231.226 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably more socks

Greetings: I believe a blocked socker is already using some other account to continue to edit based on this diff [17]. I'm asking for assistance finding the other accounts. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Reviewing contributions elsewhere revealed an obviously connected static IP. The IP has never edited any projects, other that the ones that connect it, so I've blocked the IP, with 'prevent logged in editing' turned on, for six months. Revent^talk 06:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist96

Terrorist96 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user — blatant violation of COM:UPOLICY as a disruptive username. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 06:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not this again... I've been through this before. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=697501019#Terrorist96 Terrorist96 (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not the greatest choice of username, but seeing that the user has been active here for more than 3.5 years, 8 years on en-wp and is in good standing, I would allow this name. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see balatant violation of COM:UPOLICY. I can't see ordinary violation either. --jdx ^Re: 06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: It's not a violation, it's just in rather poor taste. Revent^talk 23:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Shivayeeimagebot

Username implies that this is a bot, although this account's edits are non-bot. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reachmediacorporate

Please escort Reachmediacorporate (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user off the premises for being a vandalising spammer. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 13:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Easternworld Music

Please block Easternworld Music (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for keep uploading copyvios after previous block, and delete all uploads from this account. --Wcam (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Jcb. Yann (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Qwert7511

Please block Qwert7511 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for re-uploading copyvios despite of warnings, and delete all uploads from this account. --Wcam (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Protecting the image of the Church of SS Peter and Paul during its appearance on the Main Page

With this edit I was going to more-or-less simultaneously protect the image I inserted, showing the church that was bombed. It seems either protecting something at Commons is not something I can do, or else I don't know which menu to find that in. Could someone attend to this? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This image is auto-protected because it is included in a page which has cascading protection, i.e. the en:WP main page. So it's automatic and doesn't require action here. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hoaxing copyvio socks

Resolved

• 12345pa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Pakhiyadav (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

THe above are hoaxing copyvio socks, confirmed on en.wiki. Can someone please block and delete the uploads? —SpacemanSpiff 04:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Rawsteroid

Resolved

This account is offering illegal steroids for sale through links at their user page. Please delete the userpage and block this spam account. lNeverCry 01:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Nuked. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:94.25.229.72

Repeated vandalism. Maybe a 1-day block is needed to make sure they stop? lNeverCry 20:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Today I am forgiving so 2 days only. It seems to be a cross-wiki vandal on static IP. --jdx ^Re: 20:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Rossa TOP 2016

Copyvios after warnings and final request to stop. --Majora (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. One week is enough now. Next time maybe longer. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

DailyDude and Gaia from facialabuse.net

Hi,

DailyDude can't stop uploading copyrighted material after several warnings. Please block him.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Ellin Beltz for starting deletion. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, they were all obviously copyvios from the website cited. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

UserːRavindu Navin

Despite having previously been blocked for a week for uploading copyright images continues to upload more copyright images and attributes them as his own work. Dan arndt (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no account by that name, but User:Ravindu Navin. Yann (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

User talk:الواد الجامد

Hello.Please delete this page and Protect it from creation fully because this account is used in the tests and there is no need to warn him.Thank you --الواد الجامد (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Question I don't understand what you want. Are you asking to delete your own talk page? FYO we don't delete user talk pages. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So, please protect it so as not to any warning reach from any user about my tests.Thank you --الواد الجامد (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not a test site. If you wish to perform tests, do them on beta Commons.

No user activity here should break the law or Wikimedia Commons rules established by WMF or the community. If your further edits will break them, you will be blocked regardless of warnings. If you wish to test uploading non-free files, you cannot do it on any Wikimedia wiki. Creating warnings about incidents on the user talk page is required by our rules and cannot be disabled. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mhmrodrigues

Please block Mhmrodrigues (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user yet again for continuing to upload copyright violations (see the latest installment of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mhmrodrigues) in spite of many many many many many many warnings over the course of over five years and two previous blocks: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 17#Mhmrodrigues and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 18#Mhmrodrigues. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done 6 months 3rd block, next should be undef. Yann (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

1.20.108.157

1.20.108.157 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user – block evasion and problem tag blanking vandalism by Kritkitty. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done One edit four hours ago. No action required at this point, but we should continue to monitor. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Two accounts with usernames attacking one editor

Trying to be careful as to not name but take a look at two accounts by typing "User:Malik Shabazz". See for yourself what prompts after the original user. Their userpages too have to be deleted for being grossly insulting etc. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ugog Nizdast,

Could you be more specific please? Admins are quite busy here, and do not have the time to second guess issues. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that but I didn't want to name them since then my edit has to be deleted. I made a mistake, try typing "User talk:Malik Shabazz" instead, those two accounts are there for all to see. Let me know if I've to explicitly name them. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Malik Shabazz was last edited in September 2015, although back then some insulting edits have been deleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yann, I don't believe the accounts were created locally, the logs show an automatic creation due to another wiki and the account seems to have been expunged elsewhere. Unfortunately, the talk page on commons is active because "Wikimedia Commons Welcome" bot welcomes everyone, so when you look at "User talk:Malik Shabbazz" in the search bar, these two horrible account names show up. I've given the search link so that I don't have to type the account names here and have this post oversighted, I believe this is what Ugog Nizdast was trying to avoid. There are three accounts in that search that have problematic usernames. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Most material was globally suppressed by stewards. I believe I've cleaned up the remaining material. Please let the OS team know privately if anything was missed. Revent^talk 14:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Requests for the removal of such material can be sent to oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org, where you can be more specific. Revent^talk 14:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Sea of Japan Map en.png

This file has been nominated for deletion twice by the same person (under two IP addresses). Please semi (if possible fully) protect this widely used file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected. Yann (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Request to edit Mediawiki:Common.css

Hey, Please substitute all of Mediawiki:Common.css content with User:Ladsgroup/common.css (and delete my page then). All are unnoticeable changes to comply with WikimediaUI color palette (phab:M82). We did this already with English Wikipedia, metawiki, and Wikidata. Thanks Amir (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, site css. Scary. While Ladsgroup is a well-trusted editor, it was worth verifying (see https://www.diffchecker.com/4RdrqdVw) that this contains nothing but color changes.  Support this, as WMF-sanctioned UI standardization. Revent^talk 04:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, you can use MediaWiki itself to create the diff: Special:Diff/203156265/227664960 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. How about adding a comment to Mediawiki:Common.css linking to phab:M82? It'll make sure future color additions are not random colors. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added a note about phab:M82 to the CSS header comment. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Please fully-protect this page against vandalism. I think in future it will be a highly used template. So, I want protection.ASR2 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It is currently used on 2 files and there is no evidence that it will be highly used in the near future. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Question Also, what's the point of this template, while we already have {{Extracted from}}, {{Image extracted}} and {{Derived from}}? --jdx ^Re: 13:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done User blocked as sock puppet of User:Jhony jhony ha ji. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

LatvianCulture (Matthias Manasi) sock group

Previous report: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 58#User:LatvianCulture.2C User:International Festivals.2C User:ArtistsColumbia

It seems the sock group kept uploading files since the previous incident in March. I just went through all images in Category:Matthias Manasi and blocked all users uploading files there as part of the sock group. I also started a DR, because the authorship/license claims are dubious. (previous DR)

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Protection of File:200K articles collage hewiki 2.png

Hey guys, I'm an Administrator on he-wiki. May we please have protection set on this picture?
It's currently displayed on our front page so full protection for at least 2 weeks would be great. (We don't want anything unexpected now do we? )
Thanks!
Bharel (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done 4 weeks seems about right. Some unexpected? On Commons? Nothing ever happens here, booooooring for admins. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bharel: Your local community might want to ask Krinkle add you to the list of wikis monitored by the bot. See Commons:Auto-protected files. Revent^talk 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hedwig! Bharel (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Tbh, that's a great idea. Lemme check with the local community first, and I'll contact him once we reach a consensus. Thanks mate Bharel (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Shunshine Always

Please block Shunshine Always (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Two weeks for now, next block should be indef. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually indefed. Considering the amount of previous warnings, no usable contributions, and the previous block, I don't have hope that a timed block would help. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hot Photo

Hi,

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hot Photo: Hot Photo is uploading useless images.
• Special:CentralAuth/Hot Photo: Hot photo is already blocked on several Wikipedias.
• User talk:Lemos2016: because of this and the fact that his uploads are often named after Lemos, Hot photo is probably a return of the blocked user Lemos2016.

I think both Lemos2016 and Hot Photo should be globaly blocked.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Vituzzu locked global account Hot Photo with the following comment: crosswiki abuse". Thank you Vituzzu. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Vituzzu globally blocked 41.70.159.78 (expiration 20:35, 30 December 2016) with the following comment: Cross-wiki abuse"

"Vituzzu locked global account Lemos2016 with the following comment: crosswiki abuse"

Thanks a lot Vituzzu. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: FYI, this isn't the place to ask for 'global' locks, it's over there on meta. Vituzzu probably just noticed that it was a cross-wiki problem, instead of seeing this request. Revent^talk 13:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Vituzzu did it because I asked on IRC channel #wikimedia-stewards. I have copy-pasted here the channel bot messages. People of the French Wikipedia IRC channel helped me to find the right channel to request a global blockage at. Thank you Revent for your link. It's more practical to me than an IRC channel. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

MRPROMYK81

MRPROMYK81 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user is indefinitely blocked on two other Wikimedia projects, and doesn't appear to be here to do anything useful either, insisting on vandalising our policy pages after multiple warnings. Please invite them to have a happy new year somewhere else. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Эlcobbola _talk 16:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Andy Aeroboard

Name represents a product, uploads are images of that product. Spammed en.wp with images uploaded here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done user blocked because of inappropriate username. Ankry (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Portrait of user Code, 161002, ako.jpg

Could somebody please protect my file File:Portrait of user Code, 161002, ako.jpg? Several bots are frequently trying to "fix" a syntax error there which isn't an error but was chosen on purpose. Thank you. --Code (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done until the bug has been fixed on all bots. Bot shouldn't edit links in license templates. The self link issue is very rare, but it must be fixed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Doesn't {{Nobots}} fulfill this purpose? I think most of the bots here respect {{Bots}} and {{Nobots}}. And I can't think how the bots would continue their war on moves nor uploads (tbc, you also applied move and upload full protection...). Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why some bots are ignoring nobots. And regarding your move/upload complains - it is cherry picking, especially because it is a temporary measure. Would you re-upload or move it? I don't think so. I leave it for now in that state, but if someone wants to remove move/upload then i am perfectly fine with it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Melos Sparta and Athens 416 BCE.svg

This image has not updated fully after I uploaded a corrected version. Ghrelinger (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ghrelinger: I do not see any problem with this image. Ankry (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ankry: I recolored the yellow areas grey. Check the upload log. Ghrelinger (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

So they are grey. What is the problem? Ankry (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ghrelinger and Ankry: It is a caching issue, which is normal for MediaWiki. If an image is overwritten, the thumbnails sometimes don't reflect to the updated version. In this case, all you need to do is to wait for the software to update the thumbnails. This may take a long time for large images, so patience is key. And if you have waited a very long time and the thumbnails still don't update, then you should clear your browser's cache. Don't blame the developers for this though, since caching is intentional. If they didn't used caching for their software, then the loading times would be slow or very slow since MediaWiki is forced to update every thumbnail of an overwritten image. I'm sure other sites do this too. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: Just to be precise, Cache != Cache. You can purge pages which will purge the server side cache (the varnish caches), and then there is your browser side cache which is storing files on your local pc to avoid re-loading. Yes, the caching handling for files could be improved on mediawikis side, such a cache handling isn't intentional at all. Las but not least: There is a cluster of server so it is still possible that people on US having a problem which people from EU don't. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pokéfan95: Yeah I figured as much, but it's been more than two weeks! Can't you give the cache a little nudge? Ghrelinger (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)