Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 20

User:Everypruner5

Repeated flickrwashing. --Majora (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done User warned. Next time user should be indefed. No useful contributions so far. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh. The reason why I bought it here instead of doing that warning was because of the blatant attempt to deceive. When the image was deleted before the reasoning was because the EXIF copyright holder info didn't match the Flickr account. Then the person turns around and creates a new Flickr account under the copyright holder's name. That seems a tad egregious to me. But I'll keep an eye on them to see if they continue and report back if they do. Thanks Srittau --Majora (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

ازالة المنشور الخاص بي وزوجتي

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by سراج كشلاف (talk • contribs) 21:30, 01 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done (I think): This was probably about the uploads of User:Basmaboo, whose contributions I just speedied and whom I blocked. It seems that this account was used for some attack/harrassment by divulging personal information. Please review this, because my Arabic is limited to Google Translate. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Zejjon

Latest reincarnation of Jhony jhony ha ji. Shows up out of nowhere and asks admins questions at their talkpages – check, check and check. Asking about autoconfirmed rights seems to be the latest timesink. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done blocked. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock cleanup - socks of AdnanAliAfzal

Please block these accounts and delete all their uploads:

• Cyber Power (talk · contribs)
• Ctrl A (talk · contribs)
• 3OO (talk · contribs)
• AAS-786 (talk · contribs)
• Adnan Ahmad Siddiqu! (talk · contribs).

Confirmed socks of en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal (3 January). Clearly copyrighted logos, film posters, watermarked photographs. As the uploader has repeatedly made false claims in previous uploads of other socks (see Category:Sockpuppets of AdnanAliAfzal), none of their authorship claims or other information are credible. GermanJoe (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and deleted. Yann (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest jhonny jhonny ha ji sock

Hide&Seek (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is the lastest Jhony jhony ha ji (talk · contribs), uploads need to be deleted, deletion requests closed and account blocked. Nonsense as usual after Srittau blocked Help2005 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. I've blocked on en wiki. —SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, blocked, reverting now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hopeful Duck

Please block the above user. He is a sock of this user. See evidence at [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILWC (talk • contribs) 12:01, 04 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done User:ILWC is a sock of User:Jhony jhony ha ji. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ashishmer

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

Keeps uploading blatant copyvios after warnings.    FDMS  4    13:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Gave a final warning. Will delete images now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WhyDoStarsSuddenlyAppear

Can an admin please block this vandalism only account? lNeverCry 00:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, the stewards were a bit faster with my global lock request... lNeverCry 01:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Newly created pages deleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

BluesyMammal417

Hi,

BluesyMammal417 upload copyrighted contents after warning. The false description of File:Bill Madison.jpg making Lawrence Fletcher from Phineas and Ferb passing for Bill Madison the 3rd President Of Democratic People's Republic of Skilland in en:User:BluesyMammal417/sandbox#Bill_Madison_.281962_-_1969.29 does not bode well.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann has given the user a final warning after the last upload. This should be enough for now, but we should monitor. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent and File:Blue Policeman.jpg

The user kept on removing a Deletion Request and reverted the second deletion request on File:Blue Policeman.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blue Policeman.jpg, despite explanation and warnings not to do so. Please unblock if user promises to cease that behavior. Block is limited to one week (duration of the DR). Also protected the file for two weeks due to ongoing edit warring. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Mostly  Done, user promised not to remove the DR. Unblocked him again and file protection changed only to prevent uploads (for the next two weeks). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

ElMonologuista

Please block ElMonologuista (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, two weeks, next block should be indef. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Inxinxi007

Inxinxi007 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user continues to upload copyright violations after the final warning. 153.205.80.112 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done One week extra vacation. Files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand road signs

Full block of this page does not seem appropriate anymore. Steak (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ghoster789 & COM:CSD#F9

Interesting case and a heads up: User uploaded File:DepressioGhost.pdf, a 500MB 20 page PDF, containing a RAR archive and removed {{Embedded data}}, added by Embedded Data Bot with the comment "Correct spelling". Indefed, but something to look out for. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

He's not alone: Special:DeletedContributions/Mnmrlay --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also Special:DeletedContributions/Thuzarlay. --jdx ^Re: 12:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I added a common sockpuppet category, since from the behavior it's pretty clear this is same user. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Jjseman's vandalism or harassment

Hi,

Please, take a look at Special:Contributions/Jjseman. It may be just vandalism with a random photo but it sounds like a very bad joke if not harassment.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The caption alone is intolerable. I've given a week0long block with a reminder that further disruption will be treated more harshly. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Arthur Brum

Arthur Brum (talk · contribs) is continuing to upload files with incorrect licenses as Arthurotto Brum (talk · contribs). DrKay (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done blocked. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Unblock user LumenLearning

LumenLearning (talk · contribs) was blocked and all uploads deleted without warning or explanation. LumenLearning creates open educational resources and is trying to make them more broadly available through Wikimedia Commons. All the resources previously uploaded are original educational works licensed under appropriate licenses allowing free reuse and the creation of derivatives (specifically, CC BY) and currently in use in courses at multiple colleges and universities, indicating that they are realistically useful for an educational purpose. If there was something inappropriately self-promotional or "spammy" in the image descriptions or attributions that should have been addressed through discussion - not preemptive, unexplained deletion and blocking. Please unblock the account so LumenLearning can continue adding appropriate resources to the Commons. Opencontent (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@INeverCry: User uploaded freely licensed diagrams, related to marketing. I can see some educational value indeed, even if those files were uploaded for promotional reasons. The files themselves did not contain any promotional material. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Srittau: Yes, the first diagrams we uploaded were from an Introduction to Marketing course. Unfortunately it appears that INeverCry "resigned as an admin before Christmas." Opencontent (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Unblocked user. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Srittau: Thank you! And is there any way to have all the previously uploaded content restored, or will it all need to be re-uploaded? Opencontent (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Opencontent: See Commons:Undeletion requests. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Place categories

Could you please protect the following pages from editing and moving by anonymous users for unrestricted time? Thank you very much! Here is the list: Category:Przewóz (Cisek), Category:Przewóz, Opole Voivodeship, Category:Łaziska (Jemielnica), Category:Łaziska, Opole Voivodeship, Category:Grabówka (Bierawa), Category:Grabówka, powiat kędzierzyńsko-kozielski, Category:Podlesie (Cisek), Category:Podlesie, powiat kędzierzyńsko-kozielski, Category:Lubieszów (Bierawa), Category:Lubieszów, Opole Voivodeship --Jonny84 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Names such as Category:Przewóz (Cisek) or Category:Grabówka (Bierawa) are somewhat ambiguous for people who do not know these areas. Therefore names containing name of administrative unit are better, e.g. Category:Przewóz (gmina Cisek) or Category:Grabówka (gmina Bierawa). Names such as Category:Przewóz, Opole Voivodeship or Category:Grabówka, powiat kędzierzyńsko-kozielski are even better because they are consistent with naming convention used on Polish Wikipedia. --jdx ^Re: 19:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

At least with "Grabówka (Bierawa)" versus "Grabówka, powiat kędzierzyńsko-kozielski", we need to be careful to use English, as stated by Commons:Language policy. Since terms such as "gmina" and "powiat" appear to be descriptive and not parts of the proper nouns, I don't believe we should be using them. I don't understand your reference to "Grabówka, powiat kędzierzyńsko-kozielski" being in line with the naming convention, since pl:Grabówka, powiat kędzierzyńsko-kozielski doesn't exist. Are you saying "If pl:wp had an article about this subject, it would be at pl:Grabówka, powiat kędzierzyńsko-kozielski", or do you mean something else? Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say that according to English Wikipedia "gmina" (the lowest level administrative unit) and "powiat" (the middle level) are "English names" for these Polish units. Also these terms are commonly used on Commons, e.g. Category:Powiat hajnowski. The only exception is województwo (the higest level), which in English is called "voivodeship" (see also Voivodeships of Poland). Refering Grabówka, there is pl:Grabówka (powiat kędzierzyńsko-kozielski); for the list of other Grabówkas see pl:Grabówka. Also e.g. pl:Zalesie, which is very common name for Polish villages, is IMO a good page to understand naming convention used on plwiki. --jdx ^Re: 07:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1) My point of view: Every place belongs to a commune. And every place category is a subcategory of a commune category. 2) Also names like this xxx (xxx) are common on pl.wikipedia. too see for example: pl:Siedlce (Gdańsk). So how couldn't it be consistant? --Jonny84 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

But pl:Siedlce (Gdańsk) isn't independent locality, it's a dzielnica, part of the city of Gdańsk. Please look at pl:Siedlce (ujednoznacznienie), you will see the difference. --jdx ^Re: 07:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And? It shows good, that there is no need for a) long names b) this systematic is also used on polish WP. 2) It's part of city, right. But villages are also PART of a commune. So why do we need all these different disambiguations? --Jonny84 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A standardization is more helpful, comprehensible and well-structured than using 10 different ways to disambiguate.. PS: There are Wikipedia versions in more than 200 languages, wouldn't it be a little chaotic if we would transfer all the systematics from 200 Wikipedias to Commons? --Jonny84 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed in a CFD.    FDMS  4    01:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

TheSkriLLTruth

TheSkriLLTruth (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user on a vandalism spree including at AN/V where the account was first reported. —SpacemanSpiff 07:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Materialscientist. Vandalisms reverted. --jdx ^Re: 08:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Efa Goz

Efa Goz was warned on 9 January 2017 at 20:41 UTC by Yann to stop uploading copyright violations with Template:End of copyvios. At 11:10 on 10 January 2017, Efa Goz resumed uploading files that are copyright violations. As such, I would like to request a block of the user. Elisfkc (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Three days for now. If copyvios continue afterwards, block should be indefinite. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User asked to be unblocked. I granted the request with a very stern warning that new copyrighted uploads will result in an indefinite ban. Please act accordingly. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Bobobobobobobo9385729384920

Bobobobobobobo9385729384920 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is a returning sock of TheSkriLLTruth (talk · contribs). Please block, I've already done so on en.wiki. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Ramipril.svg

Hi there ! Someone protect the above mentioned file because unconstructive edits are taking place. Thanks, Kaulder (contribs | talk) 04:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection will be okay for the file. Kind regards, Kaulder (contribs | talk) 04:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for a week. --jdx ^Re: 06:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Qwergb

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

Edit-warring after friendly note and later warning on user's talkpage (229708737, 229708808) and personal attack (228724604/229709058).    FDMS  4    17:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

i am very sorry for this all--Qwergb (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User continues to editwar with Kleeblatt187 and me.    FDMS  4    17:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

i am very sorry i thinh that i did correct--Qwergb (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 8#31.1.24.78 and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/08#August 08. I support the blocking request. As this user uses "ek" to nominate categories for speedy deletion he seems to be from Poland ("ek" is used in PL-WP for speedy deletion), same as those IPs several months ago. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Given a final warning. Reverted the file in question to the status quo and protected for one day. Please discuss the changes on the file's talk page. If the disruption continues, please let us know. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked for three days for now after continuing to edit war, despite warnings not to do so. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment This is most probably one Polish user, well known on Pl WP, who in his different incarnations forces his point of view on: how railway items should be categorized, especially Polish and German ones. Doing this, he creates categories for single locomotives, and marks for deletion valuable (emptied) categories. Pibwl (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember something similar here on Commons. A user that created categories for single German locomotives, move files there and removing useful cats in the process. (For example, creating a cat 123 456-6, subcat of DB Class 123, but removing files from DB Class 123 operated by ACME in the process.) Took quite a while to clean that up. (Although in general, single loco cats can make sense, similar to single airplane cats.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Found one such edit, the matching category (deleted now), and the discussion back then. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lina Baumberger.jpeg nominated three times

Please indef semi protect the file page and speedy close the DR. File nominated three times (maybe) by the same person under three different IP addresses. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

For reference, an IP keeps on nominating files related to the Sutermeister family for deletion. I am speedy closing any DR and protecting all files that are nominated more than once. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticied that, too. Should be a good idea to block these range of IPs? --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I soft-blocked 178.197.224.0/20 for a month. Here is the list of anonymous contributions from this range since 1 January 2016. Since 13th December DRs only. --jdx ^Re: 10:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Contributions/ZionLives2017

Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism-only account, blocked indefinitely. --jdx ^Re: 09:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Pitpisit

Pitpisit (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Seem to have a fit in the Greek Education logos. Looks like revenge DRs to me; can't do it myself as I'm involved in his DRs. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I warned Pitpisit not to upload more copyvios. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Close up photograph of the Head of a Male Neopalpa donaldtrumpi.jpg

File:Close up photograph of the Head of a Male Neopalpa donaldtrumpi.jpg is protected (why?) via Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/he. The image ought to be categorised in Category:Neopalpa donaldtrumpi. Please unprotect it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Commons:Auto-protected files. All files used on the HE-wiki startpage are protected. I changed the category, tho. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The file is still protected, but I reviewed the license and changed the category. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Protection

File:Istanbul intc.jpg is likely to be posted shortly to the main page of the English Language Wikipedia at the In the News (ITN) section. Please protect this file. Thanks -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done There is no such need. Every file used on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia (and a few other wikipedias) is auto-protected: Commons:Auto-protected files. --jdx ^Re: 03:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Block for KWWLMarketing (talk)

Would you block this user because the username is promotional.

Regards, 2602:304:68AD:3220:B1F1:BCB2:EE93:31D 02:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Likely institutional user name. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Srittau: Per COM:UPOLICY, the "Use of the names of "organizations" is prohibited unless you provide evidence that you are or represent the respective organization". - Revent^talk 13:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Musicasgratis

Hi, I blocked this account undef. I suppose it is a new sock of coordinated uploads of copyrighted music. Right? Musicasgratis (talk · contribs) Yann (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Bruno Caramelo Danger

Bruno Caramelo Danger (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user doesn't seem to be here to help us build a repository of free, educational media. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, block Bruno Caramelo Danger for uploading copyrighted media after warning. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, and all files deleted. Thanks for the note. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Lori2018

Hi,

Warned not to do so, Lori2018 re-upload her previous copyright infringements removed by Taivo.

• Special:Log&page=File:Ryan Destiny.jpg
• Special:Log&page=File:Quincy Brown.jpg
• Special:Log&page=File:Jude Demorest.jpg

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I blocked her for a month, files are tagged for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding a photo - need help

Hello

I'm trying to add a photo on the Wikipedia page en:Nic Case. There seems to be some policies that might be an issue. One- I'm the one contributing to my own page. (not sure about this, is this a conflict?) Two- It could be interpreted that I'm holding a "toy" that would violate copyright.The RC that I am holding, I made. (not sure about this, is this a conflict?)

I think Wikipedia is the greatest thing on the web. I have contributed money to keeping this going. However, I 'personally" I'm having a hard time navigating to make "amendment" to pages. I need help. I'm not even sure how you will respond to this.

Looking forward to your response --Rcspeed (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is really conflict of interest, but you can upload photos nevertheless. But remember: you must be copyright holder, that means photographer. Do not upload photos about yourself (except selfies), because probably they are protected with copyright. Be careful with photos previously published on Internet, that case own work is considered dubious and OTRS-permission from copyright holder (that means from photographer, not from depicted person) is needed. So far you have uploaded nothing. Taivo (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Palmdale22

Please block Palmdale22 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple "final" warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for a month. Taivo (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg

• For info: @Sandiego91 and Hazhk:

This photograph is used on 53 different projects, so needs to be stable. There have been repeated reverts, could someone consider protection or advising the reverters? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There should be a protection on the file. The current version is stable. --Hazhk (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User Sandiego91 has been warned by User:Bidgee. Please let us know if the edit war continues. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

P medicine.svg

This edit (irrelevant copy-paste about some drug) to File:P medicine.svg can't be undone by a normal user because it's cascaded from Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/he. While we're at it: It looks like there are two different versions of the file, that probably should be split to separate files instead because one is not clearly superior. --Closeapple (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit reverted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

sockpuppets of Keiana

• Keiana (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• LaurenSchwartz1978 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Those two belong to the same person and have been used abusively here on Commons per w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keiana.    FDMS  4    19:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I blocked the 2nd one. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Worldstoughestmanalive

Hi,

As only activity, Worldstoughestmanalive continues tout upload copyrighted images related to en:XXX: Return of Xander Cage after warning; please, block.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

WPK

Hi, User:WPK is here with his new account: User:FCW1918. Please block. --Stryn (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Chocomoto

Chocomoto (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Continues uploading/re-uploading copyrighted images after warning. They have left me a message at my talk page saying they don't want to release images for commercial use, but they keep uploading the same images. Thanks for your help. Daphne Lantier 22:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I tried one last warning. If that does not work, please let us know. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Stinkynegros

Stinkynegros (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user: Upload of a vandalism file and improper username. Épico ^{(talk)/(contribs)} 11:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there a new account name filter to take care of these obvious cases? --Fæ (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nataliedash

Hi,

Nataliedash continues to upload image found on the Internet after warnings.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please block. I'm bored to ask for the deletion of her images "source: google.com; author: google.com"... --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked Yann (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Gokhanecmi

Gokhanecmi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Gokhanecmi has continued to upload copyright violations at 19:18, 29 January 2017 after receiving End of copyvios warning from Yann at 22:51, 28 January 2017. As such, the user should be blocked. Elisfkc (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked Yann (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Jucakae

Hi,

Please block Jucakae for uploading only copyrighted material after being warned no to do so; Cropping images found on the Internet is not being the author and copyright holder.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for three days. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Yamal12

Yamal12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Continues re-uploading copyvios even after being warned. Rodrigolopes (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked for three days. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Somoel boot

Somoel boot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Re-upload of previously deleted files of User:Yamal12 above. Rodrigolopes (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Indefed this account, User:Yamal12, and User:ویکی25 for abusing multiple accounts, will now speedy the files. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Abhijit404

• Abhijit404 (talk · contribs)

Personal attacks (see the now-reverted latest upload at File:Deepika p Lux-Award 2016.jpg), edit-warring and repeated overwriting of files despite a previous warning on their user talkpage. The user has been blocked as confirmed sockpuppet on en-Wiki. ==> Please clean up the file and block the account. GermanJoe (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done User blocked indefinitely, histories cleaned. --jdx ^Re: 17:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

user:Toreng700

Toreng700 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Re-uploading of previously deleted files. Probably a sock of User:ویکی25. Rodrigolopes (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 blocked and deleted Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

user:Mohandes 55

Mohandes 55 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Re-uploading of previously deleted files. Probably a sock of User:ویکی25. Rodrigolopes (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

user:Otávio Figueiredo Silva

Otávio Figueiredo Silva (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Continues re-uploading copyvios even after being warned. Rodrigolopes (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, speedied the copyvios, blocked for three days. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

user:Tohy13

Tohy13 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Re-uploading of previously deleted files. Probably sock of User:ویکی25. Rodrigolopes (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

49.126.137.24

Hi, FYI I blocked this IP for vandalising my talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I also blocked 49.126.102.170, and semi-protected ma talk page. What do you think of blocking 49.126.0.0/16 (or a smaller range?) for sometimes? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

An IP 49.126.107.30 nominated for speedy deletion file:Amélie Daniel 2014 5D 31.jpg, uploaded by Yann. I blocked the IP. Everybody working in speedy deletion requests, be careful! Taivo (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, but why do you feel that you should inform us about it? Nobody will blame you for this (i.e. the first) block. Regarding the range block, here is the list of anonymous contributions from this range since 1st January 2016 – a lot of vandalisms, I just have deleted two talk pages containing nonsense. IMO you could soft block the range for a week or two. Anyway, I have strange feeling that it is globally blocked Tulsi Bhagat (aka Kaulder) hidden behind this range. However I don't know why has he been blocked – I haven't noticed any disruptive edits by him. More, I even was going to grant rollback right to Kaulder. --jdx ^Re: 18:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, seeing [2], I blocked 49.126.0.0/16 for 2 weeks. Yes, I know that I won't be blamed, but I rather like to be open in such a case. I deleted quite a lot of copyvios lately. So he is probably one of them... Regards, Yann (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion log, he is probably Special:Contributions/Khem_Kshetri. Yann (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, he vandalised my talk page on the English Wikipedia today. Yann (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Qazedcqwerqwert

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

LTA duck (m:Special:CentralAuth/Qwergb).    FDMS  4    17:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock category here: Category:Sockpuppets of Qwergb. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

user:Mohsenak

Mohsenak (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Re-uploading of previously deleted files. Probably sock of User:ویکی25. Rodrigolopes (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Mohsen2222 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppet and deleted all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyrightmedia

Copyrightmedia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Can an administrator please take a look at this user? They've had quite a few images deleted, they were given a last warning a while ago, and I've just tagged 30 or more pics with "no permission". So far this user only seems to be uploading copyright violations. Thanks. Daphne Lantier 01:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a month and now I'll going to delete his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Global European Union.svg

There's upload warring going on again there. Apparently, the world isn't burning quite fast enough for some brexitarians. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I restored the latest version from 25th June 2016 and protected the page for a month. --jdx ^Re: 09:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It's probably worth taking a look at Special:Contributions/BedrockPerson as well. For example, File:Continental Unions.png, where the user made the same change as above, again with misleading upload summaries. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I indeed did just did and reverted it. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done User warned. Block may be appropriate if this continues. Yann (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Protection on File:Ian Castle.jpg

I would like to change the category ot the file from Category:Chess to Category:Chess diagrams but the file is protected. I don't know why this file should be protected. Could someone change the category of the file or unprotect the file.

Thank you. Cbigorgne (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done It is auto protected because it is used on English Wikinews' Main Page. Anyway, I have moved the file to the proper category. --jdx ^Re: 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Sbihmkolkata

User is spamming a fake WP article on their own talk page, username represents organization they are spamming for, may want consider deleting the logo they uploaded as well as it's only purpose appears to be spamming (was used on a similar, now deleted page at en.wp) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked per the Username policy. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked sock

I've just blocked User:Onenonlycrazyboy and User:I am rock as checkuser-confirmed socks of User:Nagendra NJ. As the Nagendra account is also blocked here, and the new accounts continue to upload copyvios, I thought you may want to block them locally. --Ponyo (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is Commons, so it may be a while... lNeverCry 03:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Accounts indefinitely blocked, files speedy deleted as clear copyvios. --jdx ^Re: 05:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Old sock of Albianmoonlight

Here's David Horvitz again with a signature image: Oogstoogs. This is an old account, so a block may not be needed, but File:Affluenza.jpg has been deleted numerous times throughout his years of sockpuppetry, and should be deleted again. His little game is to upload images (he's uploaded this one at least 10 times or more) and try to worm them into psychology-related articles or articles about places on various wikis. He was quickly reverted by an IP with this copy on en.wiki, but nobody reported the sock at the time. lNeverCry 02:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done File deleted, account indefinitely blocked. --jdx ^Re: 06:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

New York Times

New York Times (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Violation of username policy. lNeverCry 03:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Account indefinitely blocked. --jdx ^Re: 06:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Khlifa john

Khlifa john (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Sock of Kissan20 (see [3]). lNeverCry 03:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

ThatGuy911

Hi,

Please block ThatGuy911

• who derive copyrighted logos for out-of-scope sexual prank,
• who might be the puppet of a known vandale.

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Already  Done per COM:AN/V. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Masturbation Neagu Mircea

Masturbation Neagu Mircea (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Vandalism only account (see uploads), blocked on en:wp per inappr user name. --Achim (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/NobodyHome

Special:Contributions/NobodyHome. Jee 03:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Special:PermaLink/232771950#NobodyHome --jdx ^Re: 04:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Jet

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

Sock of blocked user AdnanAliAfzal (see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal‎) ==> please block and delete uploads (selfies). GermanJoe (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked and tagged Sonic Jet. Taivo (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is correct. Am I supposed to respond to everyone?

I am very new. I uploaded 2 images which I did not have the right to use and 2 that I did have the right to use because I took them with my camera. The two images that I did not have a right to use had copyright watermarks on them which made me think that since their owner's information was listed made them fair game to use. I was incorrect. As I was editing my first article to appear like what I think is the correct version of writing on Wikipedia, following helpful advice from a user named Ian.thompson, I received a message from someone named Yann all at once telling me that I was in violation of the copyright agreement. He is definitely correct that I was in violation on two images. That said the final message from him regarded an uploaded image that I took (I uploaded the same image twice with different dimensions because- I'm not as good at this as others). His message was that if I committed one more violation my account would blocked or deleted or something to that effect - I can't seem to find the original image. He followed his final warning up with a message to contact him if I needed clarification. When I attempt to contact him I found that his page was blocked. I actually don't need to talk to him unless I am supposed to. This long message is a way of going "Do I need to talk to Yann about this or - now that I understand copyrighted images can I just go back to normal life?" My secondary question is about images that I own being flagged down as not belonging to me. I was at a masterclass during this concert and I got to be backstage and take pictures of the dancers afterwards. I want to write about dancers and choreographers on Wikipedia because there are not a lot of entries about them on the site and I think it's good to know where people come from. What I don't want is to be in violation for posting a picture that I took. Can anyone out there give me any guidance on this? Also, did I write this article correctly? I think I cited things the correct way (I might have gilded the lily in which case I will remove anything that goes too far.) I just want to know for the future. Thank you. Aquariusveritas (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aquariusveritas,

Yes, the first thing is to talk to me. ;)

Seeing your message, I restored 2 files and created a DR instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann. Everything happens so quickly which is a good way to learn. Thank you for keeping me on my toes! -AquariusveritasAquariusveritas (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

SEThorpe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is a sockpuppet of Stho002 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Admitted as much on m:Steward_requests/Permissions (see also his user page here) and created the account solely to discourage the promotion of CheckUsers on Wikispecies. Blocked on en.wp for abusing multiple accounts and blocked several other places for cross-wiki problems (e.g. has no less than 20 sockpuppets at species:). Also lodged a CheckUser at en.wp, since he has edited there. Commons is actually one of the places where the original account is not blocked so I don't know why he doesn't just use the original User:Stho002 account here... Either way, sockpuppetry is not allowed and the account should be globally banned. Until then, blocking the account locally at wikis where he has edited is necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Stho002 is globally blocked and can't edit here. SEThorpe has not made any edits negatively affecting Commons. No action required here. If the latter is indeed a sockpuppet of the former, the issue should be handled globally. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for partial deletion of version history

Could please someone delete version history of File:Ford Consul.jpg, as I'd like to prevent personal information about myself be shown (see this change). Thanks, --Joschi71 (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

sorry, if possible please also in the version history of File:Audi Coupé Typ 89 vorne.png and File:Audi Coupé Typ 89 hinten.png, thanks! --Joschi71 (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joschi71: revision text hidden. I hope this is OK now. I doubt there is a reason here to delete whole revisions. Ankry (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ankry: for File:Ford Consul.jpg this is fine now, but File:Audi Coupé Typ 89 vorne.png and File:Audi Coupé Typ 89 hinten.png still contain personal information in the file version comment, is there a way to hide that? Thanks a lot for your help! --Joschi71 (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joschi71: They are also in file history there. And this information cannot be deleted/hidden from the top file revision AFAIK. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

mmh, ok, thanks. --Joschi71 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Joschi71 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

user:Holy Goo

Holy Goo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user insult in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marcel van hattem.jpg. Rodrigolopes (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done User has been warned by User:Érico. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Stormfrontlogo.png

This file has been tagged for Speedy twice and then nominated for deletion as Nazi symbol (Commons is not censored). Please semi (if possible fully) protect this file, as it is widely used. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Done only autoconfirmed users, that should be sufficient for now. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Soteriaspace

This account is a blocked sock of globally locked VOA Soteria place. We now have an IPv6 vandal playing games on User talk:Soteriaspace. Can we get a semi-protection of the page and perhaps a 1 or 2 week block of 2607:fb90:95a3:ecb7:5094:7e3c:75f9:95db/64. For admins who aren't familiar with IPv6, blocking a /64 is equal to blocking a single standard IPv4 IP. /64 ranges of IPv6 are assigned to one person by ISPs. Thanks. lNeverCry 07:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done × 2 --jdx ^Re: 09:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sissyfagot

Hi,

Please block Sissyfagot who upload images derived from copyrighted materials with a male face on female bodies and fake descriptions, and, who has a hardly acceptable username. Example: File:Sissy Maid.jpg = https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/05/52/ff/0552ff5cc0ef0d6f5f64f54d097ab2be.jpg + another face

Sincerely, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done User blocked per COM:IU, both uploads deleted as copyvios. Thanks for reporting this, --AFBorchert (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Denwalker12

Another one of these helpline scam spammers. Please block and nuke. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Account indefinitely blocked, uploads nuked. --jdx ^Re: 14:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Janiferlewis and Andrewbrown1 also need revision deletion of the user talk pages and blocking, and Witwickysam needs blocking and nuking. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I blocked all three indefinitely. Spamming reverted. Taivo (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Cssmobileapps

Continues to do nothing but spam in spite of being warned. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I am today happy, so I blocked him/her only for month. Spamming reverted. Taivo (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Three uploaders -- same photos

Please take a look at Ambb2003 (talk · contribs) aka "Crystal Lagoons", Ferquorum (talk · contribs) and Fernando Meza Albornoz (talk · contribs) who seem to be making promotional uploads for "Crystal Lagoons" property development. Some images were speedied, others have been sent to Deletion Nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, These are suspicious enough that a check-user is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

ping Yann, The CU came back stale. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Burtonskill & HappyTape socks

Hi, On the 16th Burtonskill had uploaded a BDSM image however due to it being speedied he then decided to create another account HappyTape which I assume was to avoid having his images deleted,
BK has since gone back to uploading with the other account,
The images were the same and HappyTape has been repeatedly warned to stop uploading copyvios however they've simply contiuned regardless,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yann warned HappyTape and I deleted last remaining upload of Burtonskill as copyright violation. Neither of them has now any edits. Maybe this is enough at moment, but if somebody wants to block, that's OK for me. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Okie dokie thanks for your help Taivo - Always appreciated :), –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

At least we need a check-user, and block one of the account, if it is a sock. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mitosofire

Mitosofire (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) On the file File:Dyl.jpg that Mitosofire uploaded, the file correctly failed the automated FlickrReview. The user then claimed it passed review, supposedly passed by Denniss. However, looking at the page history, Denniss never touched the file. I believe that this kind of action violates some of the most basic parts of Wikimedia Commons and should result in a block of some sort. Elisfkc (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him/her for 6 months, because this was his/her second block during current year. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Kaunainchandiha

Kaunainchandiha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user – vandalism only account (here and on English Wikipedia). Keeps vandalising Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kaunainchandiha. Please block and nuke their uploads. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 11:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him for a week before I saw this topic. And Ankry deleted his uploads. --jdx ^Re: 13:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

14.0.180.87

14.0.180.87 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - Block evasion of 14.0.180.121 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. 153.228.130.169 02:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked Ankry (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:MaraBlackJakc

MaraBlackJakc (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user

Multiple copyrights violations, some still on, even after notified. Épico ^{(talk)/(contribs)} 01:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Castillia.jpg and User:Santa maya

Santa maya (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has overwritten File:Castillia.jpg nine times, six time in the past few hours. They have ignored the overwrite notice on the reupload page and my note when reverting. They have ignored the edit warring warning. Kleuske has filed at ANU but since the user wished to ignore COM:OVERWRITE, action is needed. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for three days. Please let us know if this continues afterwards. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Pingdo

Pingdo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user disruptive behavior: batch DR'ed images uploaded by me with no valid reason (not even following proper procedure), only because they did not agree with my DR's. --Wcam (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Wcam: I see you already warned the user. Let us know if this continues, no further action required until then. I will speedy close the DRs now. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Srittau: Thank you, and it seems the user started to revert your edits now: Special:diff/234717913. --Wcam (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wcam: Thank you for pointing this out. I gave the user a final warning. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Wcam

Wcam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Disruptive behavior: It's serious. The photos Wcam uploaded are just the same as the photos I uploaded. Howerver, he want to delete my photos. It's nonsense. And please be serious and be fair to me. --Pingdo (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no ill intentions. I'm kind. --Pingdo (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No action required. Valid deletion requests. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I just wonder why they're valid. Can you tell me? I just don't understand it. --Pingdo (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

David H. Holzman profile

I hope you can help me with this. I am new to Wikipedia, and was editing the David H. Holtzman profile. I updated the photo to one taken in 2016 to replace an older one that was ten years old. I thought I had done this correctly, but the photo was removed. I have gone through the process tonight to validate the photo, provide some background on what happened, and confirm that it is available for use in the public domain. I contacted David H. Holtzman who had originally given me the photo, and he is willing to send you corroborating information to that effect if it is necessary. I am glad that Wikipedia is so professional and serious about this. I hope that I have satisfied any concerns, and I have tried to remedy the situation in good faith tonight. Please let me know if this is okay, or if something further needs to be done. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnemarieSmith (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@AnnemarieSmith: To publish a photo that was already publshed elsewhere, we need an evidence that it is freely licensed; likely a written permission from the photographer (not from the subject of the photo). Ankry (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi AnnemarieSmith, please contact our support team, i.e. permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. A permission by the photographer is required to keep this photo. Please do not reupload this photo again. As soon as the permission is accepted by the support team, the file will be restored. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Flag of Afghanistan.svg

I am requesting the file be unprotected so that it may be updated to reflect File:National emblem of Afghanistan.svg. Prior to now, no proper SVG of the current coat of arms has existed, so previous attempts at update were made with GIF images, which is why it originally protected. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ankry (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooops, it's still telling me it is upload protected. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Atorres50

Atorres50 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

is blocked indef on en:wp per disruptive behavior. Now they go on here on Commons: Nonsense speedy DRs and repeatedly faking my signature, [4] and [5]. I didn't put a Don't-remove-warnings message on his page, but I reverted some of his edits. It's a kind of revenge. --Achim (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indefinitely. --jdx ^Re: 20:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! For the record: Seems to be related with IP 209.242.141.27 which is blocked on en:wp for 2 years as school IP. --Achim (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ednamc89

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Ednamc89: This user upload only copyrighted material even after being warned not to; Please block.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User:李煊泽567

Appears to be a sock of User:LiXuanze to me. They both have the same history of reverting random files with "sorry" as their revision comment. Compare the history of File:Coat of arms of the Netherlands.svg with File:Emblem of Afghanistan (1978-1980).svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"LiXuanze" is the Latinization of the Chinese 李煊泽. --Wcam (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I blocked 李煊泽567 indefinitely as sockpuppet, but I did not revert any edits. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sicks159

Sicks159 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user, vandalism-only account. Here only to upload copyright violations for use in attack pages on English Wikipedia. No point in warning people like this; they obviously know what they're doing. Please invite them to leave. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have left them. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Protect Template:Valued image

The template Template:Valued image needs semi-protection. It's transcluded in 21,000+ pages. --George Ho (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Revent^talk 02:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Ersharmapiyush

Requesting block, as user is clearly not here for any reason except to spam us with his low-resolution selfies...TJH2018talk 02:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. It seems you already warned the user and requested deletion of his files. No further action required at this point. As a side note: You should use VisualFileChange when requesting mass deletions like that so you get only one deletion request for all files. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, as I didn't know that even existed...TJH2018talk 07:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Gamer need

Violation of my userpage, 3 times after I restored information on his talkpage regarding copyright violation (important info for patrollers / moderators). I send him a message, but violation my talk page, while he was warned again for copyright violation, I wonder if a block would make the message more clear. A block is for protection, in this case it is, because I don't think the user understands what the message is. With a block he/she can think about it. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Continues with copyright-violation. I only handled one, have no time, there are maybe more files. Now the reason to block Gamer need is more urgent. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Gave the user a two week pause to reflect on their behavior. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

For reference, I removed talk page access as well. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Malikaveedu

Please block Malikaveedu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

1996ANONIMATO1996

Please block 1996ANONIMATO1996 (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) 12:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

IMZahidIqbal and sockpuppets

Please block:

• IMZahidIqbal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user
• LARZZE (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user and
• Hello.Zahid (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user

See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/IMZahidIqbal. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done All blocked. Yann (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Lang-VP

The Template:Lang-VP needs protection. It was vandalized once last year. --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Template doesn't need protection, nor was it vandalised once last year. Please tell me you're not going to pester us constantly to piss about with template protection here like you do on en.wp. Nick (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No, no. I'll behave, Nick. And I awfully misread the revert. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I misread COM:protection policy and overlooked the intro. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

IP searching to rename a viking ship

Special:Contributions/51.175.43.178 is a SPU account working to rename The Tune Ship to Haugen Ship. His campaign has been mainly on no:wp, but have also spread to other editions. See no:Diskusjon:Tuneskipet and Global user contributions.

There are IMHO no trace of good contributions among his edits, and I suggest a block. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done He comes here rarely, but has only one goal. Static IP, blocked for six months. --jdx ^Re: 09:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sex Photos

Sex Photos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Only here for uploading copyright violation porn images. Daphne Lantier 08:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done User warned, uploads deleted. --jdx ^Re: 09:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Josh-Luders-Jonny-Gray-Star-Cast-Character-Photo-Nickelodeon-YTV-Breakthrough-Entertainment-Buccaneer-Media-Nick-Press.jpg

Uploader and an IP are repeatedly reverting the speedy tag on this obvious copyvio. Daphne Lantier 09:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 File deleted --jdx ^Re: 09:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The user re-uploaded the file under new name and I blocked him/her for 3 days. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Arabic Wikipedia 500,000 (5).svg

Please protect File:Arabic Wikipedia 500,000 (5).svg (Full protection) for 1 month, this is the recent main logo in ArWiki and used for a celebration (500k articles) --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 09:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done --jdx ^Re: 09:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Kölner Rhein.jpg vandalised twice

This file has been vandal-nominated twice alleging the author could take legal actions agains these ones who don't follow and respect the license (well-known case, nbut not a valid reason for deletion. Please semi (if possible fully) protect this file and the Deletion request page. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Semi protection should be enough. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppeteer

Hello! Is Ignore 17 (talk · contribs) the known sockpuppeteer User:Jhony jhony ha ji? It's a newly registered user, quicly jumping to creating his Commons.js, focusing on India related themes and asked a quite easy user rights related question on my talk page. Please advise! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 18:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I suspect user N. F. S. Grundtvig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is the newest sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user WPK~commonswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). User's behaviour on Wikimedia projects (see global contributions for reference) supports my view. (should I do checkuser request?) --80.223.190.250 23:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Alitanan

Quacks like a block-evading sockpuppet of User:Suvaninarirat. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. So far only one upload and this is nominated for deletion. I warned him/her. No other action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr.RungsunKlinkaeo

Please block Mr.RungsunKlinkaeo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for spamming after warning and short block by Yann, uploading copyrighted maps taken from the web, and removing speedy tags. Thank you. Daphne Lantier (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Spamming after warning, undef. Yann (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

User:RAVI TEJA007

Please block RAVI TEJA007 (talk · contribs) as this is an inappropriate username and it clearly violates the username policy as it is a promotional username of a famous person. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: The account has not edited for six months. While the uploads were promotional, there doesn't appear to have been any attempt to confuse this editor with the actor. Blocking at this point seems pointless. - Revent^talk 21:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Offensive username/userpage, possibly personal attack

User:Slavhoranbosse is an offensive username(translated to swedish), and a userpage which can only be interpreted as a personal attack or masochistic self-promotion. Consider warning/block/removal. DavidIvar (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the userpage. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Buger mania

Buger mania (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user – nothing but copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring at File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png by new accounts

Take a look at the file history. Not sure where you're suppose to report edit warring on commons, but User:15 creator 15 is a new account which simply reverts to contested edits. Other accounts have done the same before being banned. Please semi-protect the file. Rob984 (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Account blocked by Magog. Yann (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rob984: IMO semi-protection won't help much in this case, so I restricted uploading and moving to admins only. Unfortunately, now one has to place {{Edit request}} on file's talk page if s/he wants upload a new version. However if you insist, I (or other admin) can lower protection level to autoconfirmed users. --jdx ^Re: 15:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jdx: , I'd prefer semi-protection for now, just to see if it helps. Full protection is problematic because the file is updated regularly with changes to the situation. Various contributors collaborate, so full protection could slow the pace and likely discourage many. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done --jdx ^Re: 04:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:5CC:101:2EF2:1C8B:E72C:5D2E:8A5B

Seems a block evasion. Jee 17:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Already blocked. Yann (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AFBorchert and Yann; those comments and actions look very wise! Jee 03:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Urgent request to protect students in education program

I will put the request on each of the photos in a moment but I need the request to be acted on as soon as possible.

There is a major dispute about the work of Tec de Monterrey students in Spanish Wikipedia. Over the course of the past few days a number of people have denounced the program over a number of articles which were not done well, claiming all the work is defective and a "threat" to the project. Needless to say I disagree with the assessment as the coordinator, although some improvements can be made. So far for trying to defend the program, I have been permanently banned from es.wiki (despite 10 years of volunteer service to various Wikimedia projects), but that does not seem to be enough for the folks in the discussion. They found the photo of one group in Commons and linked back to student pages to compile a list of names of participants. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual#Proyectos_educativos

Simply stated, I cannot risks having students being harrassed. For this reason, I request that Common delete the following photographs, all uploaded by myself as the author

• File:Discourse and Academic Writing Spring 2017.jpg
• File:EVAP Group 14 Spring 2017.jpg
• File:MarthaGomezEVAP12Spring2017.jpg
• File:MarthaGomezEVAP19.jpg

And the photo already mentioned on the page above

• File:GroupPhotoWikiCampusJan2017.jpg

I am in contact with the Wikipedia Education Program and am trying to get this resolved. But an ounce of prevention... Thelmadatter (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I declined speedy deletion request, because the files are used in multiple userpages. Regular deletion process is going. Taivo (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As I feared, they are looking at these pages to pursue students. (Solo quiero dejar constancia que la usuaria Thelmadatter solicita el borrado de imágenes acusando a los usuarios de Wikipedia en español de una potencial amenaza de acoso hacia sus alumnos (por el hecho de hacer un listado de usuarios para revisar sus contribuciones). Por si todavía pueden verse [6], [7], [8], [9].--Rosymonterrey (discusión) 23:55 12 mar 2017 (UTC) ) I wish they put this much effort into helping us when we asked for help.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Taivo, I disagree this needs discussion. Pottential harassment is a valid reason for speedy deletion, even if it was nominated by the uploader, even if these files are used in userpages. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment @Thelmadatter: has misinterpreted the situation. The files have been used with the only purpose of compiling a list of all of the students contributions. You can see the long list of articles involved. Some Spanish wikipedians are going over them to try and solve problems of faulty translations, fix the ones that can be kept and delete the irrecoverable. But nobody is putting the blame on the students, they are not pursued in any way. In fact, none of them has been banned from editing, so I consider to ask for the deletion of the files is a measure as exaggerated as unnecessary. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I obviously disagree here. While Im sure that some of the folks NOW might be willing to review articles and help, we have gotten nothing but condescenting remarks when students and I asked for the same from es.wiki. I and my students have been called incompetent with no business editing in Wikipedia on multiple occasions. Ive asked colleagues at my school to quickly review some of the articles that were originally in question and there has been some review of same at the WMF, both agreeing that while there are some lingüístic programs they arent so bad as to deserve some of the events of the past few days. This includes my permanent ban from eswiki with nothing more than one appeal by 7-8 people decided by one administrator, not because of vandalism or harrassment, but because I cannot guarantee that all student work will be perfect. Even if I were a native Spanish speaker, I cannot guarantee work done by between 100 and 220 students and 3-10 teachers per semester. I have asked for patience and help from a number of the same folks I am concerned about, only to be shot down and ganged up on. Its a rather long and nasty discussion, but the blow up can be found here [10] And for an example of the nastiness already incurred by one students see [11] Thelmadatter (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thelmadatter, Commons isn't the place to discuss about texts or issues related to other projects but about media files. My previous comment was just aimed to clarify your fears on risks having students being harrassed and pursued. I am an active member of es-wiki, a native Spanish speaker and I have followed the thread (without taking part of it though), I have checked your students user pages and I can assure you they haven't been harrased not even banned. The photos were used to collect their nicks, compile a list and check their contributions, that's all. Hence in regard to the files, your request of deletion is unnecessary, in my opinion. My colleagues administrators will judge whether they accept your request or not. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Abus S333AJP.jpg

User:Davey2010 has removed categories from File:Abus S333AJP.jpg, an image which I uploaded several years ago. Despite me trying to justify the inclusion of extra categories in a conversation on my talk page (the image covers two different vehicles) he/she still insists on deleting the categories when I restore them. Would it be possible to revert to the categories as of yesterday and put a short block on this to allow some time to cool off? Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This user has been warring over the categories and when I went to their talkpage [12] they stillcarried on warring[13] so after reverting I then added a note[14] however I was still reverted[15],

Why would I need time to cool off I'm not pissed off ?, The vehicle doesn't need to be categorised because it's barely in the image,

The note is better because it means there's no over-categorisation but the vehicle is still identified,

Personally I believe Geoff needs to be blocked for failing to discuss the issue first. –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• This editor has again inserted the categories[16], Could I ask someone blocks them for edit warring?, I admit I was no angel in the earlier edits however I started the discussion and even added a note to the image so there is no reason to continue edit warring whilst there's a discussion ongoing on their talkpage and a discussion ongoing here, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 10:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Logicacoma

Please block Logicacoma (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for continuing to upload copyright violations with false authorship claims in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done User blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:UserRJ - 2017

• UserRJ - 2017 (talk · contribs)

UserRJ - 2017 has been warned over and over again about copyright issues, but simply ignores the notes and keep uploading infringing material with false claims of authorship. Please block that account. --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 15:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Files deleted and user warned. Gave him a final warning since none was given before. Would block if he continues uploading copyvios. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 16:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Bella Rose

Please block Bella Rose (talk · contribs) because this user keeps uploading photographs with promotional material ( like with File:Bella rose itunes.jpg ) and is acting in an uncivil manner. I can't see a famous Bella Rose that exists. This user uploaded around fifty out of scope pictures that contain nothing but promotional material or the user's face. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I deleted the content but you put sufficiently enough warnings in their talk page, wait to see if the behavior changes or not. If not, then we will block them. Thank you for your notification. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Antonioreydi

Please block Antonioreydi (talk · contribs) as this user is autoconfirmed and making bad edits on semi-protected pages like with portada. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Forwhat790406

Hi,

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Forwhat790406: Copyvios, selfies, nonsense images; Please, block.

Best regards,
  --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Files deleted, user warned. Yann (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bryan4562013

Please block Bryan4562013 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user again for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Allhamdollah + copyvio webms

Resolved

Could someone block User:Allhamdollah as they're uploading copyvio webms & images, I've not warned them as they don't speak English so if anyone wants to warn them in their language i have no objections, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The templates are in Arabic as well, as they autotranslate. I deleted the copyvios and gave final warning. Thanks! If he persists, maybe we should block him. --Ruthven (msg) 22:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've never known where to find the templates so usually warn in English lol, Anyway thanks Ruthven for your help much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: See Help:Gadget-UserMessages. --jdx ^Re: 06:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Jdx You sir are a bloody life saver thanks so much!, In some respects I wish this place was similar to EN in terms of warning names as that way I could find everything, Ah well anyway thanks for that it's a massive help!, Have a great day. –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Mimikr

Mimikr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for multiple blatant copyright violations, making fake metadata (see talk page). --Яй (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done One more file deleted, user warned. One could be a genuine error, there is a free license at the source, and it was reviewed. I converted your request to a proper DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Review of unblock requests needed

Could an uninvolved admin review these two unblock requests: User talk:119.160.68.5 and User talk:119.160.68.190? There is no reason given in the first request and a nonsensical one in the second – blocked or not, anonymous users cannot upload files. Link to contributions from 119.160.0.0/17 since 1 January 2016: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/?project=commons.wikimedia.org&text=119.160.0.0%2F17&begin=2016-01-01&end=&namespace=all&limit=20 --jdx ^Re: 11:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jdx:  Declined both. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Momotaro khan

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

Was blocked for a week and immediately started uploading copyvios again after it expired. All uploads have been marked for deletion. Requesting block. --Majora (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done No other contributions. Indefed. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Symbol support vote.svg

is a heavily used file across many Wikis. It is fully protected (edit & move), but is not upload protected. Could someone please fix this, thanks. -FASTILY 02:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The same goes for:

• File:Soccerball mask.svg
• File:Olympic rings with transparent rims.svg
• File:Flag of France.svg
• File:Symbol c class.svg
• File:Symbol question.svg
• File:Symbol template class.svg

-FASTILY 02:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've protected File:Symbol support vote.svg, but I'm not sure why the other listed images should be fully protected. Materialscientist (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Because they are heavily used in sister Wikis; vandalism to any of these files will adversely affect sister Wikis. -FASTILY 09:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Did the rest, protection makes sense IMHO. No improvement to be expected, heavily used. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Synkke

Please block Synkke (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 14:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done User blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Example.gif

Could an admin please fully protect this file? It is used to deter users at enwp from uploading files with generic titles. Thanks, FASTILY 21:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done indef full protect. Natuur12 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:PokestarFan

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

will keep us busy. AGF, but either troll or kid, look at his uploads and contribs. Don't know what to do with him/her. Already blocked indef on en:wp and on simple. --Achim (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Argh, I just noticed this: PokestarFanBot. --Achim (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: I looked several of his contributions, and I found these files at Flickr under a valid license. I assume you actually reviewed these contributions instead of accusing PokestarFan as a troll (unless Flickrwashing). And also, I don't see any warning in his Talk page before opening this thread. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this and that. Amitie 10g, you are right, I reviewed 6 or 7 of PokestarFan's uploads and that plus editing the file pages adding the correct flickr links, date, author, license took half an hour. I won't do the remaining ones (some of which are dupes I just noticed), you are welcome to do so. Therefore I said he will keep us busy. --Achim (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest an indef block. Clearly there are competence issue's and this user seems to be treating Commons as a play ground. We can either invest a lot off time in this user or we can draw the obvious conclusion. We all know were this is going. Natuur12 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Argh, this user adds a watermark at the bottom of every Flickr upload. See File:Forest pic 21.png for example. I won't waste such ridiculous time to fix all these files (if no one is willing to fix all of them, then I will try then on Saturday). I would support an indef block if this will persistently continue, since we have no need for an incompetent user. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the user is not who added these watermark, them are already found in the "intermediate" source website. But, I agree the im,age should be re-uploaded from Flcirk, as many of us already done. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Per Pokéfan95, and if they still don't contribute constructively, per Natuur12. We're not a play ground but if the user settles down and contributes constructively, they're most welcome here. Nick (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:BagtownUSA

There is a complaint in OTRS concerning this block be Denniss. The user was hardly active and I found no real rationale for this block. I would suggest to release it. Any objections? Ankry (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No objections, though I do find it strange (maybe even concerning) that someone should wish to 'retrieve' an account with 1 edit on Commons from 2.5 years ago, and no edits on any other WMF project. Does the user state why they wish to be unblocked, what they intend to do once unblocked, and do they definitely have access to this account (are they mistaken about the account name, perhaps, maybe ask them to make a talk page edit to confirm access). Nick (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

They say that they feel being deprived of some of the content by the block and find it not fair to be blocked without a blockable action from their side. They seem to be a real person, not a bot, however. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I also find it strange that the user created an account on 23 Oct 2011 and made his/her first edit on 23 Sep 2014, almost 3 years later. --jdx ^Re: 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It was common for me to block accounts who were created long ago and suddenly came out to add rotate requests to images without need of rotation. There was a lot of rotate vandalism by then. This request is more than strange especially as he claims to be very active on Wiki (not on this account obviously). Without further details/clarifications by this user I wouldn't unblock him. --Denniss (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

IPs of Reguyla

Reguyla was indef'd by MichaelMaggs for continued intimidation and harassment of users here at Commons due to conflicts that originated on other sites. Yann offered him to open a case at COM:AN/U for a public review of his block but Reguyla declined (as IP). Instead, we have now multiple IPs that attack MichaelMaggs and others, see [17] and [18] from today. The IPs are coming from the network of the Navy Network Information Center (NNIC), i.e. 138.162.0.0/15, and Comcast, i.e. 2601::/20. Blocks of individual IPs do not help much as they are quickly changed when necessary and then used to reinstate personal attacks through edit-warring on MichaelMaggs' talk page and now mine. I find this behaviour disappointing and deeply troubling as I knew Reguyla as prolific and constructive contributor over an extended time period. It is sad to see that there is apparently no longer any interest in a return to constructive editing. Instead we observe battleground behaviour that continues since the indef block on 3 March 2017. I've blocked two of the IPs and protected MichaelMaggs and my talk page for a few hours from IPs to give it a rest for a short time period. But I am afraid that this will continue and would like to discuss openly how we best proceed in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest taking a minimal path for the moment, blocking IPs as needed and seeing if Reguyla gets bored of it over the next week, or finds a more appropriate platform to express their discontent and explain why they feel hard done by.

Though there have been ad hominem accusations and some ranty diatribes, I have yet to see anything that I would call malicious harassment, though as stuff has been suppressed from view maybe there's worse that I have not seen. In practice some of the responses to 'attacks' were less than ideal, in those situations the administrators/trusted users being criticised would have done better to just walk away and ignore the venting rather than prompting more.

My viewpoint is that I would rather have seen Reguyla left able to write on their user talk page to vent their frustrations on this project, rather than taking away all on-wiki venues. If that could have been managed with a light hand, in the context that Reguyla is a long term contributor, then we probably would not have the outcome of lots of IP socking. There are very few occasions where removing talk page and email access completely for long term contributors is a best option, and does not drive the blocked user into worse behaviour and guarantee they will never be able to return to contributing positively to the project(s).

Where we have seen successful long term blocks, including permanent WMF office blocks, is where the blockee has part in negotiating and agreeing with the reasoning for their block. It is a pity that such a dialogue has not yet been possible with Reguyla. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification of a couple things. First, there is absolutely no validity to the argument above I am not interested in constructive editing. Everyone should notice I have been a positive editor here for months and did hundreds of thousands of positive edits in that time with no problems. The problems came about when a couple admins started threatening, intimidating and making personal attacks against me here on Commons and elsewhere. Second, I was NOT intimidating anyone. I was trying to engage a couple of members of this community in a discussion about their personal attacks and intimidation directed towards me on Meta. Then Michael Maggs threatened me on my talk page and I responded. Seeing that a block was likely if I continued I archived the entire discussion and moved on to editing. A short time later, Michael indeffed blocked me again...for the second time I might add. Responding to threatening behavior is not battleground behavior, the threats are, even if they are coming from an admin. I also started a discussion on the AN/U page about the community having a discussion to unblock me or not. I have stated from moment one that the only thing preventing me from positive edits is the block. IF that is removed, then I will have nothing more to comment on and will go back to editing. Reguyla 138.163.106.71 15:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Reguyla, you removed the request shortly thereafter. Since then you continued with a series of personal attacks. This can be hardly interpreted as a sign that you are ready to return to constructive editing. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's funny you define my comments as personal attacks but comments directed at me by admins that are far worse are not. It's also worth noting that an indef ban doesn't give an editor much avenue for proof of constructive editing. I was editing fine until Michael Maggs blocked me and I'll be fine if unblocked. It is the block itself that is the problem and is preventing me from editing with my account. If there was no block then there is no problem. Sorry I had to change IP's again. People keep blocking me to prevent me from engaging in discussions. Reguyla 138.163.0.42 15:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

1.It was not Michael Maggs who initially blocked Reguyla. 2. Reguyla continued the attack against Ajraddatz after that block. 3. Then Michael Maggs extended the block which is perfectly valid as the users previous block log says "FINAL chance being given here, user has provided enough evidence to be unlocked, extending the courtesy to a local unblock". Jee 15:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that I did one edit in 450, 000 that I should not have. I was angry and I apologize. In fairness though, these errors in judgement only reflect about .000001% of my edits. Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:110C:2547:D92E:DF60 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not about the percentages of good and bad edits; it is about violation of the Commons:Blocking policy as a user should not edit outside their talk page during a block. I don't know your history; but the blocking admin had stated "that s/he has rich history of blockades". You proved it now. And even after the block is extended, you went to Nick's, Magg's and now AFBorchert's talk pages. You reverted me to restore your edit, and when I reported it here, you came here and commented. Do you now know you can't edit outside your talk page during a block irrespective of the merits of those edits? Jee 03:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well if you are just going to dismiss all the positive things I did and focus on a tiny group of bad that are all direct results of a block that is problematic in the first place then there clearly is nothing I can do to change your mind so I am not going to try. I am clearly not going to change your mind and of course I know it's a violation of policy to evade my block. It sucks to edit as an IP. I can't use AWB, Hotcat, VisualFieChange and a lot of other things plus it causes people to create a disruption because I am not editing with my account. That's the problem with discussions like this. The editor either accepts the risks and responds in their own defense or their opinion doesn't get heard or taken into consideration. Since my block is indef anyway, I really don't have that much to lose do I? Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:1584:4BDB:101F:DC50 10:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: Usually it would be indeed the best to leave the talk page open. However, when Reguyla was blocked shortly before for one day, talk page access was misused to attack another user for a conflict outside of Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi AFB, yes, however the actual text "are lying and making false statements" is literally an assertion rather than a personal attack. Reguyla may be short on good faith, and it does bring issues from other projects on to this one, but this is not harassment against other users or of the conventional seriousness that would necessitate removing talk page access. It's more the sort of thing that could have been reverted and left as a diff to discuss. --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with you here, Fæ. This is a serious accusation and to confront someone at Commons with such an accusation in regard to a conflict that took place at another project is in my view harassment. I know (and I know that you know) that there exist much more significant levels of harassment. But even if it can be seen as minor harassment, the problem is that it did not stop despite all concerns and warnings that were raised before. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that handling Reguyla is a puzzle and their behaviour has been, let's say persistent. As per my recommendation to Reguyla, they need to recognize their behaviour has been unacceptable, and that is only likely to happen after a long break. However any administrator taking action in this case should weigh the options and try to keep a light hand. The best outcome will be where Reguyla can return to contributing to the projects in the future. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, While I would have initially given Reguyla the benefit of doubt, it is now clear that he doesn't intent to edit constructively. I blocked 138.162.0.0/15 for a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yann, it is absolutely unfair of you to accuse me of not editing constructively when literally the only reason for accusing me of it is because I am blocked. If I wasn't blocked I would be editing just like I did before the block. So if you want to make baseless accusations that I am not editing constructively, then be fair and explain that the only reason I am not is because I am blocked so any edit I do including participating in this discussion is considered a violation of policy as block evasion. Therefore, if there was no block, I wouldn't be doing anything wrong. Participating in a discussion about me should NOT be considered block evasion. Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:110C:2547:D92E:DF60 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Do not reverse the issue. This discussion is happening because you edit under IP after your block on MichaelMaggs' talk page, allegedly attacking him and others, while you said you won't do it. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not reversing anything Yann, I'm merely stating the issue as I see it from my point of view. I listened to your arguments and I understand your point of view but I disagree on how it should be interpreted. It wasn't meant as a personal attack on him or anyone else. All I have done is attempt to engage a couple of editors/admins who I felt attacked me first. I moved on after Michael's threats and Michael blocked me anyway. You offered to post a statement as have others. I appreciate that but I feel it's better that the community discuss the block rather than me request unblock. Now that the well has essentially been poisoned by these discussions there is no point either way I suppose. I have stated I want to return to editing and most people have stated they would like me too. I fully understand that no admin is going to over ride Michael's block so the only avenue is appeal to the community. If the community wants me to be able to edit then they should be allowed to state that don't you agree? Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:110C:2547:D92E:DF60 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a personal attack? Here are some quotes from the edits I refered to when I opened this section: “you just suck as an admin”, “this project would be a lot better off without you”, “an admin who is nothing more than an egotistical bully”. Constructive editing in a collaborative project begins with being respectful and considerate against others even if you disagree with them. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well you have consistently focused on only the less positive edits I have done. Not one person here mentioned one good edit, not one and since only three people have even commented here from the entire community and only 2 admins I can only conclude that even if someone in the community did support me editing then they would likely not say anything here now. You also talk of constructive editing in a collaborative environment without once mentioning that I have done that with every editor or admin on this site who treated me with respect and was willing to collaborate. Collaboration requires multiple people and I have consistently collaborated with anyone who wanted it. It's not a one way street though. No one kept my talk page open so that I could deal with my block collaboratively and constructively and instead forced me to make the choice of not commenting in my own defense or evading my block. All I asked for was for someone to post a simple statement saying "Hey Reguyla got indeffed by Michael Maggs, does anyone think that might have been extreme and should we let them continue to edit?" but no one wanted to do that. That was too much to ask I guess, because no matter how much I did I am the guy who is banned on EnWP and Meta and IRC for voicing my opinion that admins should have to follow the same rules as editors making me a continuous target.

I am expected to just be a simple target for abuse and not say anything about it or the one doing it and certainly no one is going to tell them to stop. Targets are expected to sit there and get hit and not move. Targets do not speak to defend themselves when they get hit and no one should speak in their defense when they are are hit or "targetted"! They are targets. No one gives any thought to that and if a target does move or speak, then surely it's the devils work and that target must be taken down for "personal attacks" or some other excuse. That's all I am, a target. So it's fine, if you don't want to unblock me and that's clearly the case. I'll just edit as an IP in the rare case I want to fix something and you all can deal with the backlogs here. Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:1584:4BDB:101F:DC50 10:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The series of less positive edits are your most recent edits that led to the block. And you continued doing this after being blocked using IPs to circumvent the block. That hardly convinces anyone here to unblock you or to open talk page access. You are quick in blaming others. But I fail to see here any self-reflection beside repeating how much you did for the project or how much you could do. This is all correct but it will not help you unless you find a less confrontative approach without personal attacks, without importing conflicts from other projects, and without edit-warring. These are all no-gos. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Woah, stop right there everybody. It should be clear that block-evading IP posts are not permitted on this page, nor anywhere else on Commons. Such posts should immediately be deleted, not responded to. Engaging with them merely encourages more block-evading behaviour that no-one wants. It's a pity to see the community being so easily drawn in to conversations by block-evasion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: You are, technically, correct. It should be understood, however, that there is a class of editors for whom a technical block will never work... the 'bar' for evading blocks is pretty low, due to the way the internet works. There are cases where the fight is not worth the effort. - Revent^talk 00:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I endorse the rangeblock which has been placed and support continued efforts to restrict Reguyla from accessing Commons at this time, however, I would very much like to see a plan put into place which would allow Reguyla to eventually return to productive editing on Commons. I would suggest the very first requirement has to be that Reguyla cease evading blocks using IPs, to show respect to the Commons community, and also to accept that the block that MichaelMaggs placed was not unreasonable. That would also require Reguyla to accept that 'importing' disputes from other sites will no longer be tolerated. I know that's something we've not been as proactive in stopping as we should have been (and in that respect, I can understand Reguyla being a little disgruntled that we've come down hard on stopping him bringing his battles from Meta onto Commons). If there is agreement to unblock at some point, I would also want to propose some sort of parole for a year, whereby any uninvolved administrator may block Reguyla if he uses Commons to intimidate or harass users who he has been in dispute with, or who may have blocked him on any other site. I'd go with escalating blocks, starting with 24 hours up-to a maximum of 1 month, and if he's repeatedly being blocked for a month at a time, we come back as a community and discuss a formal ban. I'd want community feedback first and if this gains consensus support, I'd propose allowing Reguyla talk page access so his response to these proposals can be gained. Nick (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Good for me. I hope Reguyla would accept this proposal so that we can get back to constructive editing, instead of wasting time like this. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Jee 12:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --AFBorchert (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dan Koehl (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have re-enabled talk page access for Reguyla, subject to conditions, to allow him to appeal his block if he wishes to do so. He has already said that he does not want to, but he may have changed his mind. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this action. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh. I'm not sure how many here are aware of the extreme harassment this user engaged in in the past over at en.wp, but he is following exactly the same pattern here. Refusing to accept that he is the cause of his issues and not everyone else, evading blocks to harass those he feels have wronged him , etc. I would suggest that trying to placate him with half-measures like this is not the appropriate way to deal with him. At a certain point it is time to acknowledge that no matter what past positive contributions a user has made, the drama they cause simply is not worth it. I would appear to eb in the minority in expressing this here but I can pretty much guarantee that if you follow this proposal, in the end you'll just end up site-banning anyway, but only after a lot more needless drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  Your comment is loaded, I include the 'sigh' which makes it appear that you are tired of the opinions of the community expressed above. This viewpoint nicely illustrates a key difference between the norms of English Wikipedia Administrators such as yourself, and Administrators on Commons. Commons has a much greater capacity to tolerate a diversity of behavioural norms, possibly related to the Community's tolerance of views by long term contributors who are not especially skilled in written English. This leads to more opportunity for contributors who have run into problems on other projects becoming a positive force here, and for the Community to repeatedly provide chances for reform to those who have fallen foul of local policies. Reguyla is a good example of a problematic contributor who has been allowed to contribute positively here over a long period, despite being effectively globally banished everywhere else. It may not work out, but there is absolutely nothing but good that comes from tolerance for the unusual and providing opportunity for improvement; rather than a sigh, it's a welcome smile at seeing more openness on Commons compared to every other Wikimedia project I'm aware of. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously giving him more chances to act the fool after outright trolling has worked out just super which exactly why this discussion has taken place. This is not about diversity, or ability with English, it's about someone who has been an out-and-out troll across multiple projects, including this one. Regular is not the victim here, just as he was not the victim on en.wp. He was banned by the community, and declared his intent to be the most disruptive vandal we'd ever seen. He didn't accomplish that goal, but he did harass the entire arbitration committee on a daily basis for a months on end.It's clear from what has already happened here that nothing has changed, which is why his disruption on other projects is still relevant. It's part of a pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Reguyla was blocked for bringing non-Commons issues to Commons. Please don't do so yourself. If you believe that Reguyla's cross-wiki behavior merits a global ban, you should make that case on meta. - Revent^talk 22:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see it as the same thing, I'm not trying to re-open an old debate, just informing those who may not be aware that what is happening here has happened on multiple other projects already. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: The situations are not quite equivalent. Reguyla was blocked on other projects for behavior that he engaged in on those projects... he was blocked here, basically, for using Commons to evade those blocks. He has not engaged in the specific behavior, here, that he was blocked for elsewhere... he simply used Commons as a means to continue the argument from elsewhere. His block here was for doing so after he had previously agreed not to.

If he, believably, commits to not use Commons to continue arguing about cross-wiki issues, I see no reason not to unblock him. His edits to the Commons filespace are prolific, competent, and useful... the same was true, honestly, about his edits to the enwiki mainspace. His cross-wiki behavior is only relevant to the degree to which we can believe such a commitment. Unfortunately, I have seen (and this was a problem when he was unblocked on IRC) editors who are not active on Commons using the ability to communicate with him in a venue where he was not blocked to troll him about non-Commons issues. This is also unacceptable.

If you want to provide evidence about his past behavior elsewhere, that relates to the 'reliability' of his statements, please just link the evidence instead of making unsupported claims. Such evidence clearly exists... you are rather obviously (and understandably) not neutral regarding him. The block evasion itself makes a consensus to unblock unlikely. - Revent^talk 23:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision of User_talk:Reguyla is relevant. - Revent^talk 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My point about the repeat behavior is more to do with the situation we are in right now, when he has already been blocked. Evading the block, using multiple IPs until a rangeblock is needed, becoming more contrite and accommodating in an effort to get unblocked, etc. w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kumioko is enlightening in this regard, at 164 entries, from throughout the entire time period where he was banned, let back in, and banned again... i don't know at least twice, his block log here, there, and at meta is an ungodly mess so it's hard to sort it all out. Anyway, that was what I was getting at, that his behavior right now reflects a well-established pattern that has repeated for years from one project to the next. If the Commons community finds that not to be relevant and disregards it, so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox, as already pointed out by Revent we do not want to have a discussion here about Reguyla's conflicts at other projects. His account was indef'd here for importing conflicts and grievances from other projects. The last thing we want here is to invite him to respond at Commons to comments that resurrect these conflicts here at this project. Commons is seen by many as a sanctuary that is free from the conflicts at en:wp or elsewhere. Quite some users managed to be constructive and prolific at Commons despite being banned or indef'd at other projects. Please respect this. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

{{Section header}}

110035 transclusions, please semi-protect it, or fully protect it if necessary. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ankry. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done (semiprotected for now) Ankry (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Block a user

I'm coming here to ask that someone block Johnnaber and take away his talk page access. I've done this to him on Wikipedia and I noted that he had an account here as well. I don't ask this lightly, but this looks to be a case where there's actually more chance of harm happening if it isn't restricted.

Here's the gist of what's going on:

Johnnaber signed up for an account and has been using Wikipedia as a way to message some of his friends. He hasn't made any other edits and he uses Wikipedia solely to communicate with others. The problem here is that he's in a private prison and as such, his communication is extremely likely to be restricted if he's resorting to using Wikipedia as a method to contact others.

What makes this a tricky situation is that the prison seems to be restricting his access to the outside world, as per some of his statements on his now deleted Wikipedia talk page and if he was meant to contact his friends via the more conventional methods (e-mail, phone) then he would be contacting them in this way. In other words, he's communicating in a way that is almost certainly against the prison's rules and thus making it very likely that he could be punished - maybe even ensuring that his prison sentence will be longer - for communicating outside of the authorized channels. If he's supposed to be talking to them then he can get his parents to give him their e-mail addresses, if he has access to e-mail.

If he can't access e-mail then ultimately they are not people that he is authorized to contact, meaning that again - he's using Wikipedia to bend (if not break) the rules at the prison. None of the messages back and forth have really even been that bad, but the fact is that he's almost certainly not supposed to be doing this.

I feel bad reporting him here, but he's almost certainly breaking the rules, something that will only end up getting him in hot water at the prison facility. I'm not certain if they can tack on more time, but they could take away the ability to get out early for good behavior and this could get some of his privileges revoked or even get Wikipedia blocked at the facility, which would be detrimental to the others at the prison. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The reason I'm saying that it's a prison is that he described it as such here. A look at the name on the account here shows that it's a therapeutic boarding house, but that still puts us in the same situation since he's likely not supposed to contact people outside without the facility's consent and that's a place where they can keep people longer than initially stated, as they'll view breaking the rules as a sign that they're not getting better. (I had a family member that stayed in a mental health center and that's exactly what happened to some of the residents that did break the rules.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another thing to note is that via the now deleted talk page on his WP account, he is unable to open letters, so again, he's likely not allowed to message people like this and is doing this without the facility workers knowing. I know I'm just piling on here, but I am concerned for him. I'm not going to contact the facility or anything, but I do want to make sure that he does things the right way. Again, I feel bad but I don't want him to screw up his chances of getting out in a timely manner. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Moving this here from where I posted it at the help desk. I'm also contacting the WMF as a CYA type measure because of the situation. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Userpage deleted & edits reverted. Account should probably be globally locked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Also deleted talk page and blocked User:Grantsimmons --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Bad Title Example.png

Could an admin please perform a indef full move and upload protect on File:Bad Title Example.png? It will be used to deter users at enwp from uploading files with generic titles. Thanks, FASTILY 20:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Daphne Lantier 20:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. There is no need to beat a dead horse. Reguyla has withdrawn his appeal, and so the block stands. He can appeal at a later date (he knows how to contact an admin to do so, clearly), but any block evasion will make such an appeal unlikely to succeed. - Revent^talk 12:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Appeal by Reguyla against indefinite block

Appeal

Reguyla is currently under an indefinite block, placed by me on 3 March 2017. His talk page access was originally restricted, but I removed that on 17th March to allow him to lodge an appeal.

On the same date, Reguyla posted a statement to his talk page which he subsequently confirmed should be taken as his appeal statement.

I am bringing this appeal to the community's notice, for a decision on future steps. Please could I ask editors posting here to bear in mind that Reguyla is able to contribute only by way of posting to his own talk page. If anybody wishes to add links here back to any such postings, please do so, but please do not copy and paste comments directly to this page.

Statement by blocking admin

Background

On 3 March 2017 I blocked Reguyla indefinitely for "Intimidation/harassment: Repeated and flagrant use of talk page for soapboxing and harassment of off-Commons editors". I left an explanation on his talk page.

Principles

High edit counts on Commons can never justify flagrant and deliberate violation of our behavioural rules. Experienced Commons editors are expected to be aware of and to comply with Commons policies and behavioural expectations. While allowances may sometimes be made for experienced editors who get things wrong, overstep the line, or display occasionally flashes of anger or irritation, that is quite different from editors who very intentionally and repeatedly exhibit sanctionable behaviour.

The use of Commons as a platform for “soapboxing” (importing into Commons disputes which have nothing to do with this site), and its use for attacking off-Commons editors is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of the rights or wrongs of what has been happening elsewhere. Using Commons as a platform for accusing editors with whom one is in dispute elsewhere of “lying” is not acceptable, full stop. An editor is not permitted to argue that "well, when I said he was lying it was true" since that argument in itself amounts to further soapboxing, and of necessity invites the community here to get involved in determining the rights and wrongs of disputes which are absolutely nothing to do with us.

An indefinite block (which is what I have placed) is not the same as a permanent ban from Commons for all time. Commons blocking policy states that admins should “use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour. Also consider the user's past behaviour and the severity of the disruption.” In the present case, Reguyla was perfectly familiar with Commons policies, and his immediate continuation of the exact behaviour for which he was warned (“Intimidation/harassment: Repeated and flagrant use of talk page for soapboxing and harassment of off-Commons editors”) made a fixed-term block inappropriate.

In placing the block that is currently under appeal I followed blocking policy by very clearly warning Reguyla as to his conduct, and setting out the consequences that would follow if that conduct continued. It did indeed continue without pause, with an immediate allegation that editors on other projects were lying. My assessment that this was not a situation that could be dealt with by a fixed term block was based on Reguyla’s conduct immediately before and immediately after the warning, and the fact that this was a repeat offence after having been blocked for two weeks by User:Cirt last year for intimidation/harassment, followed by removal of talk page privileges for "Abuse of talk page, personal attacks". Immediately after that block expired, I stepped in with an indefinite re-block for "harassment, personal attacks and continued disruption": see this diff. Some two months later User:~riley lifted the block with the comment “FINAL chance being given here, user has provided enough evidence to be unlocked, extending the courtesy to a local unblock.” Unfortunately, he forgot to consult, as required by the blocking policy, and as far as I am aware there was no community discussion either. Although I took that history into account, I took no account of the disagreements that Reguyla has had and I believe continues to have on other sites.

Every admin on the site has signed up to respect and follow Commons policies, including the blocking policy. That requires admins to deal with, amongst other things, harassment. An admin who impartially deals with unacceptable user behaviour by means of appropriate warnings and if necessary blocks does not by those acts become “involved” and subject to restrictions on impartially using his or her admin tools in the future.

While it is no doubt natural for a blocked editor to try to exempt himself from future admin action by the editor who blocked him previously, that only applies where the administrator has previously become “involved” because of some significant user interactions beyond that which could be expected from any other fair and impartial admin. Examples of "involvement" might include being an offline friend of the editor, having become involved in personal or heated arguments, or having made personal attacks. Short of that, any sanctioned editor has to accept the class of admins as he finds them. He is not permitted to pick and choose the ‘nice’ admins who may for whatever reason be disinclined to act on bad behaviour. Some admins will naturally be quicker to take action than others, and some may not want to be the one who blocks an editor who has a history of responding with intemperate and vehement personal attacks, both on and off wiki. A sanctioned editor can no more specify that he is prepared to be dealt with only by admins he approves of than can a contestant at Wimbledon ask to change the umpire after losing a game.

Recommendations

Our appeal policy states that the appeal should include an ‘appropriate reason’ for requesting unblock. It goes on to say (bolding in original) that an appropriate reason will almost always include one of the following:

• An acknowledgement that the block was appropriate and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated
• An explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines or is likely to be a mistake or an unintended side effect

Reguyla's appeal is based entirely on the second of these bullet points, and he takes no responsibility for his own actions whatsoever. He states (incorrectly) that he was not warned, and then goes on to characterise the warning as a "threat" to to which he feels entitled to respond in any manner he wishes. He states (incorrectly) that he had “moved on because I saw a block was likely if I continued to push the issue” when in fact what he did was to continue his attack and then quickly archive the page, perhaps hoping that nobody would notice. The block was neither inappropriate based on policy, nor a mistake, nor has it had any unintended side effect.

Following the block, Reguyla’s behaviour has been atrocious. Not only has he continued his soapboxing, he has repeatedly engaged in IP block evasion with the entirely spurious justification that he has no alternative because normal channels of communication on Commons are closed to him. He has further attempted to bolster his case by pretending to be a third-party IP editor who happens to have come across his block. Relevant quotations:

• User talk:Nick: “If you want to unblock me then there needs to be a community discussion to unblock me on all the Wikimedia sites at once including IRC and I need to be unblocked in that venue in order to participate in that discussion. This piecemeal shit isn't working and people are going to continue to harass, troll and bully me as long as I am blocked somewhere.” Diff

• User talk:Ajraddatz: “YOU called me a vandal well now you got it. I just wanted to edit and busted my ass for years just so people could treat me like shit. Well now I'm done. All because you wanted to lie and use false comments to impune and degrade me. Congrats pal, you got the trophy, you broke me finally after 4 years. Fuck this place” Diff

• User talk:AFBorchert: “You know AFBorchert it really pisses me off when you accuse me of intimidation and harassment for posting a comment on the page of an admin who is nothing more than an egotistical bully.” Diff

• Block evasion at COM:AN/BP: “Since Commons and the WMF projects in general have no problem with admin/functionary bullies like Michael Maggs making threats, trolling and making personal attacks so they can provoke editors and justify a block, there is no reason for editors to pay any attention to those policies either.“ Diff

• Block evasion at COM:AN/BP: “The problems came about when a couple admins started threatening, intimidating and making personal attacks against me here on Commons and elsewhere” Diff

• Block evasion at COM:AN/BP: “Sorry I had to change IP's again. People keep blocking me to prevent me from engaging in discussions.” Diff

• Block evasion at COM:AN/BP: “The original purpose of that discussion BTW was to engage the conduct of 2 other members of this community who were both making personal attacks and harassing me on Meta, a sister wiki to commons and after one of them threatened to use their Steward access to block my account globally if Commons didn't concede to his demands.” Diff

• Reguyla’s talk page: “I stand by all the edits I made prior to my indef block including attempting to engage the problematic behavior of two editors who participate here on Commons for their conduct in attacking and harassing me on a sister wiki that they knew I would see and then even coming here and threatening to use their Steward access to globally lock my account if they weren't given what they wanted here.” Diff

• Editing as 138.163.0.41 and 138.163.0.42: Claiming to be a third-party editor here, here and here. Then admitting to being Reguyla in person, editing as 138.163.0.42 here.

• Complaints on social media: "Now he is [read "I am"] posting on Facebook, Twitter, Quara and a variety of other venues, with links, showing how bullies are reqarded on this project and victims are punished for speaking up." Diff.

While Reguyla’s prior off-Commons behaviour was not taken into account in the decision to block, the fact that his response to this block has essentially been identical to his behaviour after being blocked elsewhere is very relevant to any community decision to allow him to return to editing. It is clear that Reguyla has been warned about his behaviour many times and in many different venues, and in each case editors have lost patience.

This type of behaviour in my view simply cannot be condoned on Commons, and cannot be excused on the basis that Reguyla has a large edit count. It is not simply a case of "balancing" poor behaviour against potentially useful edits, but of taking responsibility as a community for our reputation as a place where this type of behaviour is unequivocally condemned, and where we are prepared to stand up and take action in defence of our policies.

Given Reguyla's lack of acceptance of any personal responsibility whatsoever, his entirely unrepentant attitude, and his long-term contention that all of his troubles are caused by ‘bullies’ on a wide variety of different sites, I do not think that there is any basis at present for unblocking him. I would suggest that the community maintains the block for a period of 12 months, with a reconsideration possible at that time provided that in the interim there has been no misuse of his talk page privileges.

Community discussion

It would not be right for me as blocking admin to become involved in the detailed community discussion of an appeal against my own block, and I have accordingly restricted myself to setting out the background as I see it and making a recommendation. With one possible exception, I do not intend to get involved with any of the community discussions nor to vote on the final outcome.

The exception is any discussion that may take place on Reguyla's (frankly astonishing) suggestion that I should be part of an “interaction ban”. As such an outcome would be a clear condemnation of my own actions, I reserve the right to address that separately should anyone wish to argue that that is a realistic outcome. To avoid confusion, I would suggest that anyone wishing to support Reguyla on that point should open an entirely separate discussion thread on this page.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Discussion

• Reguyla has joined Commons in 2014 and intensified his participation at Commons in March 2015 when he started to work on categories, fixing files, and posting deletion requests. During two years he accumulated nearly half a million edits. All this would be very much welcomed if there wouldn't be a repeating pattern of importing conflicts from other projects (in particular en:wp and meta) to Commons by posting comments about en:wp at the village pump (see here and open the collapsed discussion) or by contacting his adversaries at Commons as he is unable to do this at the other projects since he was banned or indef'd at en:wp and Meta. Here is an example from April 2016 with the subsequent discussion. Two arguments are typical: Firstly, he likes to stress the amount of his contributions, occasionally even belittling the contributions by others (quote: “You need the edits to build street credit I guess”). Secondly, despite all previous blocks and warnings he continued this for the simple reason that Commons appears to be the only venue left for him (quote: “I sincerely regret posting this here since this is not the correct venue but because I am not blocked here, at least not yet, it is the only venue available”). Note that some of the blocks of Reguyla in the past were contested, see here for an example. Anyway, allow me to move forward to the context of the last indef block which led to this discussion:
  • Jdx blocked Reguyla for a day on 2 March 2017 in a follow-up to an edit-war on Ajraddatz's talk page: [19], [20] (edit comment: “Abusive? You are the one bullying me! You have blatantly lied and violated policy and I am just calling you out on it. Don't like it? Stop attacking me”) and finally posting it on his own talk page.
  • An unblock request followed which was declined by me. Quote from Reguyla's statement: “Two functionaries are lying and making false statements about me on their talk pages on Meta and other pages and I left a note to them calling them out, with links and including James Alexander at the WMF.”
  • MichaelMaggs and me discussed this with him which included a “final warning” by MichaelMaggs, see this state of the talk page. At that time the one-day block was already expired.
  • Ajraddatz responds at Reguyla's talk page.
  • Reguyla responds to Ajraddatz, MichaelMaggs, and me.
  • MichaelMaggs blocks Reguyla indefinitely. In his rationale MichaelMaggs points to Reguyla's response to Ajraddatz. This was surprising from my viewpoint as I did not found that comment as offending or concerning as others before.
  • As talk page access was removed, Reguyla asks as IP for a “community ban discussion” and removes this request one hour later.
  • What followed has already summarized by me at this board. I found this behaviour very disappointing.

In summary, I think that a community discussion about Reguyla's behaviour and his indef block is to be welcomed. This is a good practice for all long-term constructively participating users and avoids that such a block is seen as a personal issue with one administrator (even if other admins blocked for similar reasons in the past). In his statement, Reguyla writes that he will “try my very best in the future to ignore demeaning and insulting comments directed at me including personal attacks and threats on and offsite and not mention them on Commons”. This comes much closer in addressing the problems that led to his block than anything I have seen from Reguyla before. Still, even this is not very convincing if measured to the rest of the statement. I skip yet another remark about his “hundreds of thousands of positive contributions” as this does not outweigh what happened here. But what left me stunned was the request for “an interaction ban between me and Michael”. This is simply outrageous after all the insults by Reguyla as IP against MichaelMaggs in the last days. Sorry but this makes it impossible for me to support an unblock. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And what comes next? Quote: “it annoys me that his 1000 edits over the entire last year trumps the 400000+ I have done here”. This leaves me speachless. --AFBorchert (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I think Beeblebrox is correct on his evaluation about Reguyla's tactics. 1. He will never accept his mistakes. 2. He will try to silence the people who try to take action against him. 3. If unsuccessful, he demands an interaction ban. 4. There will be no more admin remains to take an action against him if we accept his interaction ban requests 250+ times. Jee 03:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose unblock. I am not comfortable in unblocking Reguyla at this point. Considering that he posed as a third-party editor three times, their personal attacks against other users, and that they used Commons again recently as a soapbox against their ban on enwiki and block on meta, this isn't the right time to unblock Reguyla. Sorry Reguyla, I appreciate your contributions here, but that's not an exception to being blocked for disruptive behaviour. A good editor don't have to repeatedly say that they made a lot of contributions. I recommend you to take a year rest from editing Wikimedia sites. No socking for a year. Then post an unblock on your talk page and admit your mistakes (and apologize). It is hard to do honestly, but it's your only option if you want to get back editing here on Commons. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose unblock. Per Michael, AFBorchert and Pokéfan95. Frankly, you had me at "High edit counts on Commons can never justify flagrant and deliberate violation of our behavioural rules." A quick examination of recent contributions show many many thousands of edits on e.g., 12 Feb that consist of categorising files ending with ".ogv" as "Ogv videos" and similar using VisualFileChange. It's rather lame to boast of such obvious and unskilled edits made in an automated or semi-automated fashion. Whether that is category changes or scraping images from another website, users boasting of high automated edit/upload counts in this manner are taking us for fools. Even the most disruptive user can contribute "usefully" to Commons at times if they keep themselves to themselves and obey policies on copyright, etc, for unlike Wikipedia, Commons is not intrinsically a collaborative project. Therefore, for the purpose of discussing behaviour it is more relevant to note contributions with other users. In this regard, Reguyla did improve since their previous ban. I had seen them regularly contribute to Featured Pictures as a reviewer, and made some nominations in November. And those contributions were fine. There are also contributions to deletion discussions and some other forums, that seem ok. Nothing exceptional either in terms of volume or of value - just a normal occasional contributor. Same goes for user talk discussions. But now in March we see a return to the behaviour we saw last spring 2016. Completely unacceptable both with the insults flying and the socking. In terms of the appeal, I agree the block is fine so there are no grounds for appeal there. This leaves option 1 open to Reguyla, which I guess he's not in the mood to do any time soon. So I agree with Pokéfan95 that a long break should be made. In particular, I find the socking most problematic, because it says "I am above your rules, which are for other little people". The boasting about edit count vs Michael's edit count just confirms this attitude problem. -- Colin (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I cannot, in good conscience, support an unblock at this time. I proposed a series of measures (at the very top of this page, currently) which were intended to enable Reguyla to return to editing here. The chief requirements were that he stop block evading, and to accept that Michael's block was reasonable. That has not happened. I don't believe we're particularly close to establishing that Reguyla understands, as yet, that disputes cannot be imported from other sites and played out on Commons either, so on a purely practical level, unblocking would not be a sensible option.
  I'm disappointed, on a personal level, that Reguyla evaded his block to post on my talk page, denied it was him (a fairly implausible denial, as I noted at the time) but continued the pretence until finally admitting his block evasion via that particular IP a week later. Reguyla's language is very striking and it's not difficult to tell if an anonymous IP is he, evading a block. You're as convincing in disguise as the forger Monsieur Roger LeClerc in 'Allo 'Allo! (though I suspect that reference may be lost on many here).
  I am, in all seriousness, saddened that you've not accepted responsibility for your actions and that we can't get you back to productive, drama free editing. I've had disagreements and fallen out with the bloke immediately above me here several times, but Colin and I always manage to apologise and to move on productively, it's hard but ultimately it's fair and it's the sensible thing to do. It's really not asking too much for you to do the same, Reguyla, but if you genuinely don't think you've done anything wrong, and if you continue to think it is Michael who is in the wrong here, this genuinely is not the project for you at this time. Nick (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I suggest the discussion is closed down per Reguyla's request, perhaps by the end of the day to give time for a few balanced closing comments. Reguyla has accepted the appeal denial on their talk page. Many are keen to list out Reguyla's collegiate issues, however as well as everyone accepting these issues exist and are "block-worthy", it is wise to measure the evidence and severity of the block against other indef block cases, some of whom were were guilty of vandalism, racism or harassment, yet had the opportunity to appeal in less than a year. Similarly that Reguyla's griping about off-project issues were repeatedly provoked by the same off-project cases being introduced by others; who based on their own views should know better than to be seen deliberately poking the bear. Just as there is a push to condemn Reguyla for "importing into Commons disputes which have nothing to do with this site", precisely the same standard should, and must be seen to, apply equitably. Given a few months off, Reguyla may be able to gain some perspective and have a go at a more credible appeal, demonstrating they understand how their non-collegiate behaviour has to adapt. Hopefully their user talk page will stay available for that to happen in a transparent and open way. --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why? So that Reguyla can repeat the claim "just like EnWP 3 or 4 members of the community here are going to be able to hold the entire project hostage and not allow me to help edit Commons". And his statement "I withdraw it as a naive and misguided attempt on my part to trust that I would get treated fairly here. Clearly that is not the case." is merely using his so-called withdrawal reason as a hook on which to attack the community. He claims Michael has broken the trust of the community and manipulated this discussion. Does he take us all for sheep, unable to form our own opinions based on experience and examining the contributions? The "other crap exists" argument above (about apparently worse users who could appeal sooner) unsupported by examples that might explain why we should consider it relevant. I am much less concerned about Reguyla's bitching about other projects (however is tedious and unwelcome), than about the continued abuse of Michael and other perceived enemies (of which I am one I guess), and the block evasion and socking. The fact is that Reguyla's contributions to the project are much less extraordinary than he boasts, the inter-personal collaboration can sometimes be fine but is on a really quite small scale, and none of this makes one inclined to give yet another final final final chance any time soon. I request the community be permitted to discuss the block and its length without being insulted to swiftly close it and thereby provide further ammunition that the whole thing is unfair. -- Colin (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Initially, I was ready to give Reguyla the benefit of doubt, but his comment today make it clear that he is not willing to abide by the community standards. We don't create special rules for anyone. I also doubt things will change within a few months. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unblock. This is a user who has proven repeatedly that they do not accept responsibility for their own problems. Good contributions otherwise can't make up for that, and it's clear they have no honest intention of acknowledging their own wrongdoing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose permanent community ban

I propose a permanent community ban for Reguyla as s/he decided to evade the block again. Jee 02:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Jee 02:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I think that a "permanent community ban" would require a wider discussion than this noticeboard. Block evasion is bad, I agree, but absolutely nothing new wrt Reguyla. Nor is the tantrum displayed on their talk page while blocked. The message from their most generous/helpful contact (Fae) is to go and find something else do to for a while, and they ignore this good advice. I don't think we're at the stage where they have done anything (that I've seen) that would justify a permanent ban. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nor I too until today morning. But the user himself think this ban is permanent and acting recklessly. I even tried to explain it to him; but no use. Jee 07:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment No such thing exists, and there has never been a need for it despite a long history of much worse cases of harassment and vandalism, so this proposal is a non-starter. Refer to COM:BP, which would need to change if the community wanted to have permanent bans without the opportunity of appeal, in the same way as the WMF uses. --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

User:Roycegrubic

Roycegrubic (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - re-uploads previously deleted images despite of warnings. --Wcam (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I blocked Roycegrubic for a month and deleted most of his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

1989

For your information: I just blocked 1989 indefinitely without talkpage and e-mail per his own request here. Taivo (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

PokestarFan

PokestarFan ( local | logs | global ) has been blocked indef by me. We discussed this user earlier and he keeps consuming our time. Examples. pointless nomination. double tagging. Pointless DR. I can list more examples if needed. Natuur12 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Natuur12, thank you. Best of all was his Request for Adminship, incredible... --Achim (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Natuur12, Achim, his incompetence on wikidata is amazing as well. He made a few mistakes with an automated tool, then promises to not use automation, then makes a bot. The hypocrisy. MechQuester (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Question: About the bot created by this user, in order to create it, should be created locally via Special:CreateAccount? --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a global account. He can create it locally at commons if he just logged into it and visited commons. MechQuester (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to edit protected page File:Xu Xiangqian.jpg

This image was first published in 1955 and was not PD in 1996. Please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} since this page is protected because it is being used on the main page of Chinese Wikipedia right now. --Wcam (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:VBage Tech

Please block VBage Tech (talk · contribs) as it is a promotional username. This user clearly stated on their user page that VBage Tech is a company so this is a promotional username that is from a company. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done User warned, files and userpage deleted. Yann (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Youssefbammou

Please block Youssefbammou (talk · contribs) because all the media that this user has uploaded is promotional. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Blocked indef by Magog the Ogre per abusing Commons for file sharing. --Achim (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Edu.bot

Please block Edu.bot (talk · contribs) because this user has an inappropriate username and is acting as a bot. The username policy cleary states that no user can put the word bot in their username. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You've failed to notify the editor that you're discussing them and their username. I would suggest you go back to their talk page, let them know about the username policy, direct them towards requesting a re-name, and if they don't change their name in the next few days, come back and let us know. We're quite a relaxed bunch here, no need for rapid quick fire action. Nick (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The user has uploaded so far two files and I nominated both for deletion as out of scope. No other action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

MacWikiEst

MacWikiEst ( local | logs | global ) has been blocked for one day by me, after he's been vandalising (attacking) my userpage and talk page, even after warning to stop. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Now trying to evade the block with 84.19.180.135 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), which natuur12 blocked for one week. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Natuur blocked the user indefinitely and IP for a week. Uploads of MacWikiEst are mostly nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Wiebke theuer

Wiebke theuer (talk · contribs) was blocked indef on de:WP for violation of Terms of Use (undisclosed paid editing). Only contributions on Commons were found out to be copyvios. Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The uploads are already deleted. As there were no previous warnings, the account is not to be blocked now. The non-disclosure of paid editing is not an issue for Commons per COM:PAID. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia_Conference_2013_portrait_041.JPG and File:Fundraising_2010_banner_Jimmy_appeal.png

These two files are attributed to Niccolò Caranti and Nicolas Goldberg respectivelly, and they don't seem to be part of the WMF staff. But the user under the IP 99.109.85.105 (talk · contribs) changed them to {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} when these are works from volunteers. Please semi protect these files. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP has stopped after you warned them. It seems no admin action is needed here. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Check the history closer. I left the message the March 23, and yesterday the user reverted my edition. --Amitie 10g (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done IP stopped 7 hours ago and a warning for vandalisme while the intention off this user may be good? Please don't use warning template's as if they are cookies. Natuur12 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

RFPP for User:TJH2018

Hi,

I am requesting that my userpage be protected with indefinite move and semi-protection.

TJH2018talk 15:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Daphne Lantier 17:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Manikganj

Please block Manikganj (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user, vandalism only account. Already blocked on Bengali Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done : 3 days by Taivo --Ruthven (msg) 11:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jc86035/gallery

Could an admin please salt User:Jc86035/gallery (delete + indefinite full protection)? Commonist keeps creating it and there doesn't seem to be a way to turn that off. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Daphne Lantier 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Freedom - VPN exit nodes

Odder and I have rangeblocked all IPs belonging to ASN 13213 (https://www.uk2group.com/). The company is a cloud hosting provider, and is being used as exit nodes for the https://your-freedom.net/ VPN. This is due to it being well-established (due to videos uploaded to Commons documenting the practice) that the VPN is being used for Wikipedia Zero abuse. - Revent^talk 14:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also ASN 49505 (https://selectel.com/) for the same reason. - Revent^talk 14:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

And ASN 21069 (https://www.metanet.ch/), again same reason. More to come... the VPN has a number of 'free' servers, that presumably exit into different ASNs. - Revent^talk 14:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 60781 (https://www.leaseweb.com/) - Revent^talk 15:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 30083 (https://www.server4you.com/) - Revent^talk 15:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 55933 (http://www.cloudie.hk/) - Revent^talk 16:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks to both of you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 8972 (https://www.plusserver.com/) - Revent^talk 17:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 10929 (http://www.netelligent.ca/) and still working this, have recently seen another upload of the software for this VPN, embedded in an image that has been used before, so apparently need to block them all. (sigh) - Revent^talk 17:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 6724 (https://www.strato.de/) - Revent^talk 17:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Good work Odder and Revent. Natuur12 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 174 (https://www.cogentco.com/en/) is massive, and the specific IP in this ASN is not actually assigned to them, it's assigned to https://www.fdcservers.net/, so I just blocked the specific IP. Hopefully it does not move around in their cloud, or at least does so slowly enough that this will discourage the abusers. If we still see evidence of abuse of this VPN after I finish, I'll widen it. - Revent^talk 18:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Found another exit in this ASN, and again blocked the specific IP. Spanning both would be a /17. - Revent^talk 19:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 51167 (https://contabo.com/) - Revent^talk 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ASN 42708 (http://www.portlane.com/en/home/) is also huge, and appears to sell connectivity to ISPs as well as cloud hosting, so I targeted the specific /18 where the VPN exit currently lives. - Revent^talk 18:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully this will stop the problems, at least with this VPN. The ranges are likely excessively wide, but I'll keep track of the actual IPs it uses as exits for the next few days and see if we can narrow it down. - Revent^talk 19:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you to both of you. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Just to make it clear, "Your Freedom" is a VPN that offers an Android client, among others. This means that it's easily usable by people with mobile clients, and the videos were both uploaded by users who had uploaded embedded files, and showed going straight to Commons at the end. I suspect that CU's of members of Category:Users suspected of abusing Wikipedia Zero might point at other IPs that are 'identifiable' as exit nodes of similar VPNs... it's quite obvious that massive block evasion is going on with these people. - Revent^talk 05:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:FuuuuuuckuJDX+JCB

TJH2018talk 22:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked a few minutes ago. Anyway, I'm proud of putting pirates on tilt. --jdx ^Re: 22:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jdx: If only I could help...TJH2018talk 00:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Patriciabotton

Please block for repeated copyright violations. Uploads by this user should also be flushed presumptively. MER-C 06:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done User warned, filed deleted. Yann (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Kay Körner seems to be back as Wichlaugh this time

Hi, could someone please check whether Wichlaugh is another reincarnation of Kay Körner. Seems to be the same pattern to me (mass uploads, mostly from Dresden (Dec 2016) and Pirna (March/April 2017)). Thanks in advance! --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This time even useless filenames. Camera seems to be the same (or very similar) (Sony DSC-HK50) as used in 2016 by Blackwhiteupl, Bilderberg2016 and other copies of him. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Daphne Lantier 04:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should nuke the uploads. Not a change that those low quality files without usefull file names and discription will ever be cleaned up. @A.Savin: you have more experience with this user than I do. Do you believe that a nuke is warranted? Natuur12 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. 1300 files, most of them just trivial forest scenes, none has been used anywhere. And block evasion. Please nuke. --A.Savin 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Nuked Daphne Lantier 18:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to come up again: Wichlaugh was blocked, only a few hours later the account Realphotosourcearea was created and started editing files concerning Pirna, home town of Kay Körner, ... I fear this is another sockpuppet. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed - blocked and nuked. Эlcobbola _talk 20:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Kaunainchandiha

Please block Kaunainchandiha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user again for vandalism in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. And please remember to notify them of the block on their talk page in accordance with Commons:Blocking policy#Instructions for administrators. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 1 month. Daphne Lantier 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• @LX and Daphne Lantier: The subject user is a sockpuppet/master and is related to Ashrafrahmani muz (talk · contributions · Statistics), Kaunainchandihaa (talk · contributions · Statistics) and Ashraf ahmani Muz (talk · contributions · Statistics). They have uploaded same/similar images of self from these accounts. Hence requesting appropriate blocks of all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Since Kaunainchandiha is the most recently used, I left it's block alone and indeffed the others. Obvious socks are blindingly obvious, in this case. - Revent^talk 06:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also:

• Ashraf rahmani Muzaffarpur (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Kaunainchandiha muz (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

—LX (talk, contribs) 10:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I blocked more accounts, deleted out of scope files and user pages, and reblocked with talk page edit disabled. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Amitie 10g

I've blocked this editor indefinitely. The reason can be read at User talk:Amitie 10g#Blocked. This user does good work, but his interactions with others, and especially Ellin Beltz, are almost invariably rude, sarcastic, or combative. He was indefinitely blocked in 2016 for his negative behavior toward Ellin Beltz, and the block was shortened to three months because he promised to leave off Ellin and be more respectful after he came back. He's failed to keep that promise, and not just regarding Ellin. He does good work, but he doesn't seem to be willing to treat other Commons editors with respect, and that is an unacceptable attitude. Fellow editors don't deserve to be mocked and abused when they make mistakes, and Amitie 10g does this on a regular basis. Since he's a long-term editor, I've reported the block here. If another solution to the problem/s is found or decided on, I have no problem with my block being changed, but we can't allow this negative behavior to just go on unchecked forever. Daphne Lantier 01:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that Amitie is sometimes a bit harsh, but I don't agree with a indefinite block. In some cases, deletions are not warranted, and Amitie was right to complain. Also, you should have warned him before. Hopefully we can find an agreement to work together. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to see Amitie unblocked, however the comment was sarcastic and foolish. It would be great if Amitie could put up their hands and make a heartfelt apology to Ellin Beltz and really did just lay off with the angry language. Ellin is a grown up contributor here, and will respond properly to complaints, but it only takes one person to be sniping and hounding you for the project to feel like a toxic environment and you start to regret logging in. An early unblock should be considered, but good will needs to be restored now. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yann and Fæ: Amitie 10g has had previous warnings and a previous three month block in late 2016 for this very same behavior. He got that three month block by his own direct agreement. Part of that agreement was stopping his inappropriate behavior toward Ellin Beltz. He was warned again on March 17th of this year for the same behavior by Steinsplitter [21]. He still continued with sarcastic and rude comments toward Ellin Beltz in DRs even after that warning. You only get so many warnings, and he's had them. This is long-term disruptive behavior, and Ellin Beltz doesn't deserve to be treated disrespectfully for a year or more. He needs to own up to his behavior and stop it. He said last time that he needed some time off and he would come back a changed man, and that's not what happened. He went right back to what got him blocked. His unblock request doesn't look that good to me. He still can't stop talking about how bad Ellin's deletion requests are. I blocked him because it's the only way to prevent him from hassling Ellin and being rude to other people in DRs and at UDEL. I think perhaps a three or six-month block would be good this time with a final warning that when he comes back, any repeat of his rude and inappropriate behavior will lead to an indefinite block. We can't just let this continue. Daphne Lantier 09:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, As I said above, I agree that Amitie's language is rude and not appropriate. However his is right on the bottom, and I can understand his anger. Did you look at these DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:NathanBedfordForrest.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathan Bedford Forrest.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al Tantura.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathan Bedford Forrest High Resolution Photograph.jpg. There is quite a consensus that these DRs were not warranted. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yann: Then there are also files like

• File:Carno FC Early Team.jpg which also had their copyvio tags removed, in this case you ended up deleting it.
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Profialis francais - lisse(Converted).pdf
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:CaptureWiki.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rms-albania-1900-04.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slavonia afundado na Ilha das Flores.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:RMS Slavonia em 1903.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Festinger.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Banves.PNG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klimt asom ndose.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noche suntuosa.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ojonas.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ojonas8.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:WilfredThesiger.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shaimuratik-back.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shaimuratik-face.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stichtingsvergadering AKVHV 1911.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hugh Frederick Bateman-Champain.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur Patrick Bateman-Champain.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clemente altieri.PNG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beatriz di Spagna, Principessa di Civitella-Cesi.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prospero colonna.PNG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ritratto in armatura del Marchese Felice di Savoia.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stemma della famiglia Rizzini.PNG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:2015 07.26. 1 Zábřeh na Moravě - nádraží.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apak hevron 1907.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edmilson coelho.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Façade principale du château de Gudanes.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag licey130 novosibirsk.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:JeffersonMitchel1904.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joosep Jürgenson.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manon Dube1.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip of Edinburgh.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topolcanybeityaakov1939.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topolcanyshomerzair.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topolcanysynagogue.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Отель Дессауэр хоф (Инстербург).png

These are the tip of the iceberg. The pattern of removing copyvio tags and tossing the files back into the pile with no action has been going on for over a year. That three that I nominated turn out to be old enough is great, I'm all in favor of keeping legitimate files. But I don't play the Lone Ranger game and just revert things - I send them to Deletion Nomination with an explanation. Deletion Nominations are not personal, they are part of our checks and balances which improve the project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Amitie 10g arranged a three month block with INeverCry after Amitie 10g himself said his behavior was completely inappropriate. Steinsplitter would have been perfectly justified in blocking him indefinitely on March 17th. Amitie 10g could have taken these DR issues to COM:AN/U, and made his case in a mature and respectful manner. He chose to take the low road. This has been going on for a year or more. We all have anger. That's not a license to be disrespectful and to constantly bother someone with rants and rude comments. I'm going to bed, but I first want to reiterate that I strongly object to any quick unblock. He's already made a promise and broken it. Letting him off quick with another promise would just be gaming the system. There have to be consequences in cases like this. Daphne Lantier 09:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you about the way he handled the issue. Would you agree with a three-month block? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: I would agree to it, but with the condition that the next block is indefinite. This should be his last shot. Daphne Lantier 10:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Three months is not proportionate. You have to consider the previous blocks, the last one was three months, therefore this block should be at least six months or indef. per standard practice. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Escalating blocks are normal, however we don't have to set a specific time up front. I suggest it's left as indef, with an expectation that 3 to 6 months may be the actual block. However if Amitie comes back with a credible commitment and a personal apology for Ellin, I would have thought there would be a lot more leniency. As said this was a foolish sarcastic comment, over the years I've had more hurtful things written at me by those wanting to be unpleasant, even claims about my mental health, yet no action was taken. If the opportunity comes up, leave room to be nice. --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Six months is the length I would prefer myself, but I wanted Yann (and others) to know that I'm open to consensus. The three month block by INeverCry made no difference, and this is particularly troubling in this case because the three month block was actually suggested/asked for by Amitie himself. If you look at his talk history from the time of INeverCry's block, you'll see Amitie saying he knows he's behaved badly and that he himself thinks he needs time off to reset. @Fæ: I'm truly sorry to hear that you've experienced such inappropriate treatment. Nobody should be treated with continuous disrespect or bullying. In this current situation with Amitie, my interest is stopping Amitie's poor behavior. As you know though, sometimes people are incorrigible in their behavior and attitude. Hopefully that's not the case with Amitie, but his history here certainly suggests that this may be the case. He often has a very abrasive approach in his interactions with fellow editors, and he's really gone after Ellin Beltz in particular over a considerable period of time. Daphne Lantier 20:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Six months as a minimum seems appropriate, as we do need to escalate here. The indeff block should be maintained for now, with leave to re-apply for editing rights after six months. Removal of the block should not be by a single admin, but only after community discussion and approval, taking into account the user's submissions at that time. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I will follow the consensus here. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with reducing the block to 6-12 mo. I am very saddened to see Amitie 10g losing it again. I stopped communicating with him because of his abrasive behavior, even so I could have used his expertise in things concerning Chile / South America and CoA. It should be made clear that a reduced block will be the last experiment the community will try and the next block will be indef and most likely stick. Further, I'd like to see Amitie 10g stay away from all DRs unless his comment is invited. As a timeframe I suggest 12 mo. no participation in DR / Speedy / Missing information deletions of any kind. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very happy that Amitie 10g is even temporarily blocked. I understand and appreciate the suggestions to put this as a 6-month block; but - there is no indication from past blocking and unblocking that any behavior will change. This behavior goes back to about May of 2015 and has never abated except during the tiny fraction of time covered by the prior blocks, which include:

• 26 April 2016 "It would be nice if you realized that other editors who spend a large amount of time here, as well as administrators and bureaucrats are here because they love this project and think it is important. Everyone makes mistakes, and it is good that we can all check each others' work - so please continue to do so, but your hostile tone and comments should be left at the door. Your "us vs them" attitude is not helpful..." Storkk
• 29 May 2016 "You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Intimidation/harassment." Christian Ferrer
• 24 June 2016 "The reason for the block is Another invalid ticket (ticket:2016060610017431) and another undel request based on a clearly invalid ticket. We are not talking about difficult cases open for interpertation but about major screw up after major screw up." Natuur12

Of those blocks, two were for being nasty to me, the other one for mistakes made while Amitie 10g was an OTRS volunteer. Due to those mistakes and a habit (see his talk page) of removing speedy deletion tickets without taking action on the item which caused it to go to speedy in the first place, several watch this and some renominate items he has tossed back on the pile (including "FBMD" files). That some of these eventually are kept and have proper source and license added is not a fault of the editor who nominates them for deletion. This is process; we do it all the time. Deletion nominations do not require upset and misery, personal accusations and drama; it is a process not a judgement and it is a process under the guidelines and for the benefit of Commons -- not ourselves personally. I personally do not support removing this block at all. Unfortunately, based on my experiences with promises made and broken by this user I do not think he is a good fit for Commons and I do not think his behavior will improve since that has been promised several times and he always has an excuse why his rudeness to me is my fault. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ellin,

I am very sorry for the way Amitie used to deal with you. I agree that a disagreement is never an excuse for bad behaviour. I have always found Amitie a valuable contributor, and it is quite a pity that we could not work together. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads up, Ellin! I also don't expect a positive change in behavior, but we should try one last time. Hope dies last they say.... --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Stas.fran

The history & logs of File:Мірек Боднар, березень 2010 року.jpg indicate that User:Stas.fran is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:Elsha riki. Cabayi (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked both accounts. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by User:Thodithilwaihojaye

Person keeps re uploading the same file over and over which keeps being deleted over and over for copyright violations and lack of permission, just look at their talk page User talk:Thodithilwaihojaye, it's the same notice over and over. It seems like he's just not getting it and will keep re uploading over and over. Can an admin or someone please look at this?ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked the user for 1 week. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:АннаКолес

АннаКолес (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for uploading a new ream of blatant copyvios after multiple warnings. Please check remaining contributions - most of them are low res photos with no EXIF, made by 5 different cameras. --Яй (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Last warning, a few files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Manolvd1999

Manolvd1999 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - repeated upload of copyrighted images. Re-upload of previously deleted images. Most of the uploads were copyvios, although the user has uploaded a few apparently legit "own work" photos. GermanJoe (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Last warning, files deleted. Yann (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed / Deleted Uploaded Files To Wikimedia Commons by Bootsguy

Thanks for calling these to my attention. Actually some of these media files I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were taken either from my own blog, from free to use websites or web pages and other free to use materials and sources or from web pages or websites which allow users to use their information, media like images, audio and video files freely provided they will cite the copyright holders as the source of these materials being used in other sites or pages such as Wikimedia Commons. I don't know how to upload these files on Wikimedia Commons and use it on any other Wikipedia pages without being deleted and/or removed later for lacking of proper free to use licenses. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootsguy (talk • contribs)

@Bootsguy: Hi,

For any content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to formally write a permission or where to ask permission as sometimes there is no contact details provided hence I would just like to use common attribution license by wikimedia if necessary. How do I do that then since it is inevitable and necessary to use these files? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootsguy (talk • contribs)

@Bootsguy: Please read the link I gave you above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposing mass block of Microsoft Azure Datacenter IP Ranges

Due to the WP0 abuse, with a pirate demonstration in File:شرح التكماطي محمد.webm, it is believed that some of them may be uploading content via Microsoft TechNet Virtual Labs, which may be on Azure. @Dispenser: found a list of Azure IP ranges and I believe they should be blocked for 1 year due to simply being a hosting provider and an easy open proxy. Any objections? (If not I'll start the block in one day). Pinging CUs @Elcobbola, Jameslwoodward, Krd, Magog the Ogre, and Trijnstel: for any comments on these ranges. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO the list is far too long to be checked in detail. Is there a shorter list of the relevant parts? --Krd 07:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Zhuyifei1999/Azure 20170328 would be a sorted list of: the original ranges, generalized to /24, and generalized to /16 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd say the ranges should not be blocked as there is no relevant amount of suspect activity. --Krd 11:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I'll hope Azure isn't their next VPN after all the 'Your Freedom' VPN exits being blocked. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Krd: You say 'no amount of relevant suspect activity', but I have blocked nearly 40 accounts just today for WP0 abuse, and from the evidence most of it has been one person simply evading the blocks over and over. The autoblocks are clearly useless, and what evidence we have without you guys running CU on them is that they are using Azure...which basically means any autoblock will expire long before they run out of IPs. - Revent^talk 23:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: The number of IPs is absolutely massive, as is the number of pirates. Blocking all of the ranges from Morrocco would be 84 /16 ranges, by my count (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T129845#3166469). If the WMF doesn't come up with a software solution, we may need to do that, although they'll probably just move to other WMF wikis. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: Perhaps they are not within the ranges on Zhuyifei1999's list. If you tell me which accounts are affected, I could look into details. Regarding the original question asked here, my answer is still valid. --Krd 07:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Krd: I was offline yesterday, and any probably not going to have time until later today, but I'll see what I can do about making you a couple of lists of accounts that were obviously the same person this evening. - Revent^talk 15:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

en:User:Bertrand101 socks uploaded a bunch of photos here

Hi. Just want to inform the admins here that two blocked sockpuppets of banned en.wiki vandal en:User:Bertrand101 have uploaded a bunch of photos here in Commons. The two sockpuppets are User:Audiovisual Communicators and User:DWAO-AM. Kindly delete these photos as these are being used for his vandalism activities in the English Wikipedia. For more details about Bertrand101's activities in en.wiki, please see this longterm abuse report. -WayKurat (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I double checked every category and photo these users have made/uploaded and it seems that Bertrand101 has been very busy here in Commons. Listing a summary of sock accounts that have been active here:

• Audiovisual Communicators (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DZAW 1593 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DWAK-AM (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DWAF-AM (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DWUF (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• GMA TV-7 Isabela (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Gerry Santiago (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DZJJ-AM (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DZIS-AM (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DWAK 1422 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Philippine Educators' Center (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Noel Trinidad (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DWAQ-AM (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DWAO-AM (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

These accounts are already blocked in en.wiki through SPI. See the archive section of the Bertrand101 SPI for more information. -WayKurat (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked all the accounts and deleted the images and categories created. Daphne Lantier 15:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I spotted another one sockpuppet I missed out in the list above.

• DZOJ 1377 Tuguegarao (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

-WayKurat (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Daphne Lantier 17:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Please tag the accounts as sockpuppets based on the crosswiki CU results. ~riley (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@~riley: I've created Category:Sockpuppets of Noel Trinidad. There's no Bertrand account here, so I just picked what seems the easiest one to spell and remember. Daphne Lantier 17:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Pozay nega

Pozay nega (talk · contribs)

Hi,

800 pages of obvious copyvio at first upload w/ random description. Do we need more to be sure that this account was created for vandalism?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

TohaomgBot

Tohaomg is operating a bot which was denied permission and which, consequently, does not have a bot flag, in order to make bulk changes at a rate exceeding one edit every three seconds. (Policy states all bots require permission, that bots carrying out non-urgent tasks should not edit more frequently than once every 5 seconds, and that bots with permission but without bot flag should edit less frequently.)

The basis for not approving the bot flag was that the bot operator never sought wider consensus for the intended purpose. Now that the bot is making those changes, it seems there are objections (which the operator is choosing to ignore). The bot has previously been blocked for operating without a flag. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Unapproved bot. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted protected duplicate

I just uploaded File:Aerial Footage of MOAB Bomb Striking Cave, Tunnel System.webm, which is a larger resolution and better sourced version of File:FIRST VIDEO US mega-bomb strike against ISIS targets in Afghanistan.ogg. Unfortunately, I cannot tag File:FIRST VIDEO US mega-bomb strike against ISIS targets in Afghanistan.ogg as a duplicate, because it is being protected via Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/pl. I am hoping someone can delete File:FIRST VIDEO US mega-bomb strike against ISIS targets in Afghanistan.ogg and redirect it to File:Aerial Footage of MOAB Bomb Striking Cave, Tunnel System.webm. Elisfkc (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done + license review passed. Daphne Lantier 04:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Kaunainchandiha socks

Post previous discussion various socks were identified and blocked by @Revent, Yann, LX, and Daphne Lantier: . I have noticed that Ashraf rahmani muzaffarpuri (talk · contributions · Statistics) is a duck. Can someone please look for more sleeper socks and do the needful? (Not blocking them myself so others can see it first and check.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Frey's Fray again

Please block Frey's Fray (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user again for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and two previous blocks. As noted in the previous request, the account is likely a block evasion sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked copyright violator and confirmed serial sockpuppeteer Alquevron. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Griebi 01

Griebi 01 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for uploading and re-uploading unfree files day by day after multiple warnings including the last one. --Sealle (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for two weeks. Daphne Lantier 22:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Bild hochladen

Ich wollte ein von mir selbst fotografiertes Foto eines Gemäldes aus dem 19. Jh., das sich in meinem Privatbesitz befindet, von meinem PC hochladen. Es hat jedoch nicht funktioniert. Ich bekam nur folgende Meldung: "Wir konnten nicht feststellen, ob diese Datei für Wikimedia Commons geeignet ist. Bitte nur Fotos hochladen, die Du selbst mit Deiner Kamera aufgenommen hast,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunfelsia (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Das hat ja doch noch geklappt: File:JohannaFischer.jpg. --Achim (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I94201314

I94201314 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user uploads copyvio after final warning (warning removed by user). --Wcam (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Yunoselect5

Yunoselect5 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is asking for special treatment: Commons:Deletion requests/User talk:Yunoselect5. --Achim (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. s.a. Category:Sockpuppets of Yunoselect Эlcobbola _talk 19:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Margaret38

Margaret38 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is uploading fake own-works for use in a canard about a so called Kelly Wallden in spanish Wikipedia. I think this is the worst kind of vandalism. --Antur (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done User warned, and will be blocked if there are any more such uploads. All uploads have been speedy deleted as obvious copyright infringements. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Aquaprouae

Please block Aquaprouae (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user, who is only here to spam. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Indef, user ignored final warning and did continue uploading spam files. --Achim (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Nationsorg

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

Promotional account with edits to user page and promotional uploads. Suggesting a {{Promotional user block}}, name represents an inappropriate username representing group or company. 80.221.152.17 17:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nationsorg - is a registered name of the association in Lyon, France — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationsorg (talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Info: Username has been changed to User:Robert at Nationsorg, which means the username should no longer be in violation of the policy. 80.221.152.17 23:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The problem is solved. I'll delete both his uploads speedily as copyright violations (complex logos). Taivo (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Grime Memories

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

Inappropriate username representing a group or company against Commons' policy. No disruptive intent, suggesting {{Inappropriate username}} soft block. 80.221.152.17 18:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The company is non-notable (no mention in en.wiki). In my opinion "Grime memories" is quite normal username, it's not "typical" company name. The user has so far uploaded only one file, which is nominated for deletion. No other action is needed now, but if (s)he continues self-promotion, then block can be appropriate. Taivo (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Kampao

Kampao (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Copyright violation uploads then it deleted under CSD F1 can you please block user from editing for now 99.109.85.105 03:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done His last edit/upload was done on 22 February. If he starts back up a block may be needed, but there's not much good in blocking a user who's done nothing on Commons for 2 months. Daphne Lantier 06:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Kaunainchandihaa sockpuppet Ashraf rahmani muzaffarpur0

Please block Ashraf rahmani muzaffarpur0 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user, yet another sockpuppet of Kaunainchandihaa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user; see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 20#Kaunainchandiha, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 20#Kaunainchandiha 2 and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 20#User:Kaunainchandiha socks. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 10:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

FastilyClone

I propose to block FastilyClone. Operator continues to do careless mass transfers without bothering to have a look at their uploads. Only today, about 35 of their transfers entered the Images without source maintenance category. @Fastily: is the main cause that this backlog has increased over the past few months, despite many hours of maintenance work. The time we have to spend cleaning up after FastilyClone is much more than the time Fastily spends on throwing those files to Commons without bothering where they land. The problems with FastilyClone have been brought to our noticeboards several times in de past few months, e.g. here by @Discasto: and here by @Natuur12: , but they seem unwilling to fix their modus operandi. We are better off without FastilyClone. Jcb (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Last record: 7 images without valid source (source is no longer valid, I've been able to fix a couple of sources, but I do think it's Fastily the one that has to provide a valid source to his uploads), 3 deletion requests. All the images lacked source. No more to add. --Discasto _talk 21:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. I support an indef block for FastilyClone since this has been going on for more than a year. File:Sopho Khalvashi-tight.jpg for example is another careless import. There is no real review of those files and other editors have to invest too much time resolving issue's created by Fastily. If he wants to edit he can use his regular account instead of this semi bot thing, whatever it is. Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• The transfers are a problem and are pretty messy. He's using a program designed by himself called Wikipedia:MTC!. It seems strange that we would have the necessity to block the account of a former admin here and current admin on en.wiki. I would like it better if @Fastily: would respond to the concerns voiced here though. If Fastily doesn't address these concerns quickly, I would support blocking the above account. It's also a bit off that the program itself would still be available for use by other editors. Daphne Lantier 06:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yet another example: here. It's one of Fastily's specialities: uploading images clearly coming from Flickr without a {{FlickrReview}}. Fastily's been explicitly asked (by me) to include such a template whenever he uploads a file from Flickr. In this case, as usual, it was another user the one who had to insert the template. The image anyway was a mess and had to be deleted and eventually restored (see here) without Fastily ever doing anything to clear the mess he had created. --Discasto _talk 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC) PS: not that old: File:Barbara Corcoran.jpg
  • And another: in the last batch of uploads, he uploaded 91 maps from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and other Canadian provinces. Was it that difficult to categorize them as Maps of Canada? About 60 images from the Category:Indian Institute of Information Technology were uploaded. Was it that difficult to categorize it? Personally, I don't think the bot is the problem. --Discasto _talk 06:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I indef. blocked the account in 6 May 2014 as unauthorized bot. I request to restore this block, it is in fact a bot and not an alternate account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sad to see several editors with grudges against me from my days as an admin continuing to hound and cherry pick my edits, in an ongoing attempt to disparage and discredit my work, even now that I am semi-retired and committed to content curation. I'm not interested in fighting with any of you anymore, so why do you want to fight with me? MTC! is not a bot, it is a tool I have created for everyone to use to help transfer enwp files to Commons. MTC! is a work in progress. File transfers are a difficult task from a technical perspective, but I am constantly taking what I have learned to improve its code. I'm open to suggestions, and I'd love to get some constructive feedback! I try to import files that will be useful to the global Wikimedia community. I'm not perfect by any means and I don't always make perfect edits, but as I've explained to Discasto already, I'm here to contribute content and improve the project, so please assume good faith; this is a Wiki after all, and I would hope that others can improve on my contributions :) -FASTILY 07:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

From en:WP:AGF (bold are mine): Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem. You haven't ever resolved the problem of lack of categories, uploads without verified source, Flickr templates... You've been asked for months to do so without result. Thus, I don't think it's a bot problem but the bot operator's reponsibility --Discasto _talk 07:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Discasto. If you bothered clicking w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#MTC! v1.0.0, you'd have seen that I am working on a categorization scheme. As for {{LicenseReview}}, I have been planning to include some functionality to detect Flickr links. Also, please stop mischaracterizing FastilyClone as a bot. It is not. Please take a moment to review w:Wikipedia:MTC!. I'm glad you took the time to review w:WP:AGF. As once of my staunchest critics, I'm sure that concept will resonate with you. Regards, FASTILY 07:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fastily, you obviously don't get it. The reason that several users want you to stop using MTC! is that you are currently creating a mess and that you have not fixed your modus operandi after a lot of feedback. Your actions create a disproportional load to the maintenance of Commons. The software is not the problem. At en:Wikpedia:MTC! we can read: "Warning: Generated file description pages are approximate, so don't forget to review, categorize, and tidy up the Commons file description page of each file you transfer!" - the core of the problem is that you just skip this step. Please be aware that it won't help to just switch to your main account for the usage of MTC!. Jcb (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jcb. Please see my reply to Discasto. Regards, FASTILY 07:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• @FastilyClone: I have revoked autopatroller rights from your "alternative" account until the community is satisfied that your contributions are meeting Commons standard. There has been issues since last year, and this year we will not settle for "I think I'm done here". Please advise us of the measures you are going to take to prevent the reoccurring issues described above. If you do not have a solution or are not willing to provide one, the account will be blocked until this the issues are resolved. ~riley (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think I am done here. As stated above, I will be looking into a means to add categories and {{LicenseReview}} where applicable. Note that I am not, and have never been against either of these things. -FASTILY 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, glad we're on the same page! Adjust your program then continue to contribute to Commons otherwise the next discussion will likely involve an unblock request. ~riley (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fastily, are you willing to check all your transfers manually and fix them if needed? And of course do not remove problem tags from your own uploads, where there is obviously a problem. Convert into a regular DR instead if you disagree with the tag. Please be aware that such a removal may lead to a block next time. Jcb (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Without answering this question Fastily has now used MTC! again, this time to move an out of scope advertisement to Commons, see here. I am ready to hit the block button on one more inappropriate MTC! upload. @Fastily: Please be aware that such a block means that you are not allowed to use any of your accounts. Jcb (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)