Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 31

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

Md Solaiman-420

Md Solaiman-420 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Repeatedly creating out-of-scope pages and files. pandakekok9 04:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
✓ Indeffed, part of a sock farm. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

File:2021 NRL AL092021 IDA infrared-gray satellite.png

pls unprotected the cewbot did not upload due to protected thank you. HurricaneEdgar 10:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneEdgar  Not done File is listed at w:Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Portrait of the artist.jpg

Please semi-protect it because for an unexplained reason IPs (likely the same person) try to remove authorship information. --jdx Re: 04:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

ItsJustdancefan

ItsJustdancefan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixersc1996 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This user has been uploading a lot of copyrighted files. Fixersc1996 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Fixersc for a week for making false accusations. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Kahoot Logo.svg

Please protect File:Kahoot Logo.svg; vandalism. Aranya (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. Taivo (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Hoa112008 LTA sock

Long Term Abuse sock HurricaneEdgar 12:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC logo.svg

Please protect File:Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC logo.svg; vandalism. Aranya (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Two temporary blocks (for 3 months and for a year) did not help, so I protected the file indefinitely. Heavily used file. Taivo (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Natthakorn TH

Uploading copyvios after final warning. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. No edits after warning. Uploads are mostly nominated for deletion or even deleted, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Trio Macan Taba Saling.jpg

Please clear the history and semi-ptotect the file. Also Jeff Rist smells like another sock puppet of Purnawirapedia. --jdx Re: 04:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Full protection is needed here. For a year. Taivo (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Central Memorial Park (28947360730).jpg

Request creation protection as it was frequently being re-uploaded without addressing the issue. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks! COM:F2C must not be permitted to upload to any filename that has already been deleted. Pinging @Magnus Manske as maintainer. Mere mortals get "Warning: A file by that name has been deleted or moved.", why not F2C?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Trần Nguyên Thơ

Trần Nguyên Thơ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks.--- FitIndia Talk ✉ 16:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Richardt1956

Richardt1956 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Continues to upload copyright violations even after final warning. pandakekok9 04:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko has already blocked rubin16 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg

Excessive vandalism. —Frodar (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Frodar ✓ Done indef AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Tunebåten, front.JPG and File:TuneShip.jpg

A five years long edit war. A long semi-protection is needed. --jdx Re: 04:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thanks, but you have missed the second file. --jdx Re: 00:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Done as well. --Achim (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Дејан2021

After being blocked twice, Дејан2021 (talk · contribs) continues to upload only copyrighted images. --Smooth O (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him for a year (third block). All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Nowrap/styles.css

This stylesheet is transcluded on over 115k pages, and if my edit request to {{nowrap}} is accepted, that number will climb to over 5 million, so it should be at least template protected. — ExE Boss (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Indefinitely semi-protected. Taivo (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Since the main template is fully protected the sub template (style file) should also be protected in higher levels, at least templateeditor (note the edit request on the template talk page). This said I first wanted to request that for Template:Nowrap itself the protection is decreased to templateeditor, but I had to notice that it is used on Main Page and its versions in other languages, so the template is anyway protected by cascade. (Pinging @Taivo explicitly because of the recent change.) — Speravir – 00:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand, which template should be protected. There is no Template:Style file and no Template:Templateeditor. Taivo (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: — ExE Boss (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I know that, but I still do not understand, which template is requested to be protected. For example, {{Nowrap/styles.css}} has no talk page. Taivo (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: I meant Template talk:Nowrap where Exe Boss requested adding some code which would use Template:Nowrap/styles.css. And because of this I thought a stricter protection would be better, but thinking further: As long {{Nowrap}} is protected by cascading the sub template will be, too, I guess. — Speravir – 23:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Elcobbola

I need to unprotect Elcobbola's talk page, but I have to discuss for important questions. --2001:4452:490:2D00:A44A:A757:6273:FF7F 22:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Or you could actually read the notice at the top of the page and use User_talk:Elcobbola/IP. Эlcobbola talk 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Google Classroom Logo.png

Excessive vandalism. --jdx Re: 02:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Two previous blocks (for month and for year) did not help, so I semi-protected the file indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Command Prompt on Windows 10 RTM.png

Please protect - vandalism. Aranya (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Semi-protected for 3 years. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

File:ITunes logo.svg

Please protect the image due to excessive vandalism. Johnj1995 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Semi-protected for 1 year. --Achim (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Shahriar Islam Alvi.png

Please protect the file against vandalism. Shahriar Islam Alvi (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment, but an indef of Bisal Khan (talk · contribs) wouldn't go amiss. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abdullah Öcalan.png

Please semi-protect it to get rid of all these sock puppets voting "delete". Clearly one person abuses multiple accounts and IPs. Courtesy ping: @Achim55. --jdx Re: 22:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked indefinitely sockmaster and 11 sockpuppets, tagged them and vreated sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I like your style. . --jdx Re: 18:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Socks of Weareme234

Caretter and Platteranna have been blocked as sockpuppets on enwiki of Weareme234 (who is blocked on commons for block evasion). Global locks have been requested, however, an administrator here may wish to block these accounts as the lock request may take a little time. I don't wish to disclose too much behavioral evidence onwiki, but any commons admin is free to ask me for said evidence privately if they wish to block the above accounts. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 15:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Done 1, other has been locked. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

49.149.69.57

User: 49.149.69.57 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Reason for reporting: Modifying/removing missing permissions templates persistently, with no reason given or communication, after multiple notices

Aranya (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. IP blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

61.238.128.43

SCP-2000 07:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Wlm-icon-cam-red.svg

Please protect - vandalism. Aranya (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Semi-protected for 2 weeks. -- CptViraj (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File:WLM Logo India.svg

Excessive vandalism. WLM 2021 in India is in progress so the file will be vandalized until the contest ends. --jdx Re: 12:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Semi-protected for a month. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Heroe del Trabajo de la Republica de Cuba.jpg

Please, semi-protect. Deletion notice on File:Heroe del Trabajo de la Republica de Cuba.jpg repeatedly removed by LTA on P2P proxy. MarioGom (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

DZwarrior1

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a year (third block). Taivo (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Google Lens - new logo.png

Please protect - vandalism resumed after protection expired in August. Aranya (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Protected for 3 months. Taivo (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:WikiCon_Ukraine_2021_logo.svg

The file is used in CentralNotice banner; please protect till October 3rd. — Ата (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Pokkyypokkyy

Per this user's uploads and talk page they are not here to contribute educational material. --Askeuhd (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The categories this user adds to his porn photos are unrelated to what the images show. It's a shocking vandalism like for this category that was added to one of his photos: Category:Église Saint-Rémi de Gif-sur-Yvette (which is a category for a church in France!). --Poudou99 (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)--Poudou99 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: . His talk page contains osbcene comments. Shouldn't these texts be erased? And one of his photo it's still present in Commons. --Poudou99 (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
You are right. I removed all obscene comments. Taivo (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done File deleted. Yann (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Ahmed Rushdi playback singer 1954.jpg

Requesting indef semi protection since sock Ips of blocked sock master Gori Nadu[1] are disrupting again and again. Also requesting a range block for the Ips._Paytime (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a year. Yann (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Namespace has subpages and Module:Namespace has subpages

Now that {{namespace has subpages}} has been converted to use Module:Namespace has subpages in revision 591569658, there’s no longer any need for it to be only semi‑protected. Additionally, the module needs the same level of protection as the template. — ExE Boss (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Iosonoandry

I just noticed that the user blocked on itwiki is instead Iosonoandri24, so they're even using multiple accounts. Titore (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned the user. Thank you for reverting vandalism! Taivo (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Wlm-icon-register-red.svg

Vandalism on File:Wlm-icon-register-red.svg, please protect. Best, Aranya (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hurshch

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. No edits since June (neither living nor dead), so at moment block is not practical. But I deleted 2 self-promotional userpages. Taivo (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Mazum24 LTA sock

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Wiktionary-logo-li.svg

At the request of user Steinbach – sysop of li.wiktionary – at the Illustration workshop, I've made some modifications to the logo of the Limburgish Wiktionary. However, the file is currently fully protected, which only allows administrators to overwrite the file. So I wanna ask if someone could reduce the protection level for a couple of hours so I can upload the newer version? Tks. LX | Talk 16:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lệ Xuân: Done. Let me know when you're done so I can re-apply the protection. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clpo13 I don't know why but for some reason I still get the message "This filename is currently protected from (re)uploading and can be used solely by administrators." LX | Talk 16:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Lệ Xuân: I thought removing upload protection would be enough, but I guess not. I've removed all protection now. If it still doesn't work, you can upload it by a different name and I can overwrite the old logo. clpo13(talk) 17:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clpo13 I tried but it still doesn't work. The new file is: File:Wiktionary-logo-li (new).svg LX | Talk 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Lệ Xuân: All done. Sorry it wasn't working for you. I must have missed something about changing the protection settings. clpo13(talk) 17:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clpo13 No problem. Thanks for your help! LX | Talk 17:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Real name as your username

Real name as your username seems a fairly obvious troll. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless they are a duck of a known sockmaster, I don't view this comment as egregious enough to block without warning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

61.238.128.43

SCP-2000 06:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Actor Waheed Murad 1959.jpg

Requesting indef semi protection since sock IPs of blocked master sock Gori Nadu [2] are involved in long time disruption. Once the deletion debate is closed, they again nominate and this goes on._Paytime (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I semi-protected the file for a year. In my opinion that's enough. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

POTY config & interface pages

Hello - I requested protection for some of the POTY 2020 pages yesterday, but we then discovered some more that should probably be protected.

The following probably need semi-protection:

And the following could do with TE-protection as they're high-visibility across all POTY pages:

Thanks, firefly ( t · c ) 10:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done rubin16 (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 10:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bücherzelle Hamborn Altmarkt.jpg

Appears to be a target for a WMF banned user (GRP or his impersonators Wikinger and Icewhiz) SHB2000 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Ahmed Rushdi 1958.jpg

Requesting indef semi protection for the same reason. Once the deletion debate closes, sock IPs of Gori Nadu [3] again nominate the file for deletion without providing any new evidence._Paytime (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Doraemon

Requested protection for Category:Doraemon. Reason: Repeated addition of excessive texts that are not really suitable for Commons. 114.10.10.152 16:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Ram Nath Kovind official portrait.jpg

Hello, please semi-protect File:Ram Nath Kovind official portrait.jpg temporarily; frequent vandalism. Thanks! Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Achim (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Младен Илић

Младен Илић (talk · contribs) is another sock of Миодраг Крагуљ, uploading copyrighted images of people related to Serbian Orthodox Church in same manner. Also all uploads should be deleted as copyvios. --Smooth O (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked him indefinitely. Will delete uploads. Taivo (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks. Here are another socks of same user, if you can block them also Марија Стојић (talk · contribs) and Браничево (talk · contribs). --Smooth O (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

POTY CN image

Could File:Broadway tower POTY 2016 banner.jpg be full-protected as a high visibility image? Used in the POTY CentralNotice. Thanks, firefly ( t · c ) 18:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Four temporary protections have passed and the image is still widely used. I fully protected the image indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

More POTY protections

There was damage, so please template editor protect these pages that provide POTY configuration / functionality:

CC @Firefly and Rubin16: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done with same expiration time. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Elcobbola

I need to unprotect Elcobbola's user page, so I can freely to modify it's details. --埃尔科博拉 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done And who are you to have such a need for modifications at another user's page? De728631 (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I determined to remove Schiller's quote and image were Elcobbola is placed here. --埃尔科博拉 (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It's up to Elcobbola what they display on their page. We don't remove content from other user's pages unless in cases of blatant vandalism or other violations of the Commons rules and guidelines. None of this is the case there though. De728631 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@De728631: this is LTA SwissArmyGuy. RBI. Эlcobbola talk 22:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Wikivoyage Kosovo expedition banner.jpg

Target for WMF banned user - w:WP:LTA/GRP SHB2000 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Might as well watch the fireworks, as having to do an edit war is just pure time-wasting here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems like it's ✓ Done by AntiCompositeNumber now SHB2000 (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

69.178.193.56

Please block and revdel edit summaries. I'd do it myself but someone stole my magic wand. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done clpo13(talk) 19:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editors on User talk:Giants2008 and requesting protection:

Both 190.218.19.132 and 197.53.52.20 are revert-warring on that user talk page, and an additional IP editor did the same thing. Please do block them. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll consider this report ✓ resolved as the IPs were blocked yesterday. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Absurd use of road signs

Would it be possible to semi-protect a gallery page Absurd use of road signs to avoid net blank IP edits? (They should use the Sandbox instead.) — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Other option would be to block the user, but he uses multiple IP addresses. — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I semi-protected the page for a month and blocked the IP for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Fremont Fair 2009 - art car 01.jpg

Protection requested. I presume it would be poor form to protect my own photo. Some IP keeps insisting that I am wrong about the date of my own photo and somehow photographed it at least a year after I uploaded it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Pakistani superstar Waheed Murad 1962.jpg

Requesting indef semi protection as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Actor Waheed Murad 1959.jpg, concerning another photograph of this man since sock IPs are continuously attacking his files. Paytime (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a year. Yann (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Former flag of Gwangju.svg

Please restore original version (including wikitext) and protect the file against reuploading. Kang20210412 clearly does not respect COM:OVERWRITE – it's my second report related to them. --jdx Re: 07:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Reverted, user blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

65.246.72.95

Disruptive editing. They have nominated a few files for deletion (what is all right and I strongly agree with the nomination) but later started to mess with nominated files (by nominating them for speedy deletion) and the request itself. BTW, I am pretty sure that all IPs mentioned here belong to them. --jdx Re: 07:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 3 days. Yann (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Danghui.svg

Please unprotect File:Danghui.svg. There is a need to update the color and it is now low risk on edit warring since those involved users are inactive.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

File:6280 - Luzern - Verkehrshaus - Museum entry stickers on Volkswagen Beetle.JPG

See the protection request for File:Fremont Fair 2009 - art car 01.jpg. Please also protect this file due to similar IP vandalism. Johnj1995 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done The problem range seems to be 190.224.148.0/22. clpo13(talk) 15:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Solaiman006

Solaiman006 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

LTA sock. pandakekok9 09:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: What's the sock master account? Yann (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Abdullahalimran001. Though it seems a block is useless right now, as he seems to have abandoned his sock. pandakekok9 09:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I am not sure in sockpuppetry, but I blocked him indefinitely as spam-only account. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Life of mahomet (crop).jpg

Hello, can you semi File:Life of mahomet (crop).jpg? Disruptive editing from multiple IPs today already. Thanks, Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Tropical Depression Josie (WPac) 2018-07-23 0305Z.jpg

Hi, please semi File:Tropical Depression Josie (WPac) 2018-07-23 0305Z.jpg, excessive vandalism. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Rev del request

Can't find any proper place to request rev del, but can someone rev del a couple of edits by the IP 5.72.x.x (can't remember the full IP) on COM:ANU Thanks! SHB2000 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000 ✓ Done. Generally it's best to not make revdel requests in public, see Commons:Revision_deletion#How_to_request_Revision_Deletion (though it doesn't really matter in this case). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take note in future SHB2000 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

217.179.225.230 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continued vandalism after warning. School IP. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Already reported at COM:ANV. BTW, do not be naive and do not warn obvious vandals. --jdx Re: 11:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
If I were sill an admin, this brat would have been blocked on sight. As it was, since it's a schoolkid I though I'd give him a chance and follow the rules for two reasons: 1. To avoid a whole school being blocked and 2. To stop him bragging to his mates that he'd got the whole school blocked. It's somehow refreshing at 68 to be called "naive", but at the same time, fucking insulting with over 13 years here, nearly 700,000 contributions, 27,000 uploads of my own work, and five years experience as an admin here. Please reflect on that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
And still not blocked. Do we just let people wander in and shit on our expensive carpets? I don't. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked the IP for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

File:96W and Krosa 2019-09-08.png

This page needs temporary semi protection to prevent destructive editing, thanks! —MdsShakil (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I semi-protected the file for a month. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo the IP address use by LTA Hoa112008, admin they should be range block HurricaneEdgar 12:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Andrew5 LTA sock

✓ Done Blocked by Taivo HurricaneEdgar 08:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I deleted some uploads due to failed license review, wrong source link or missing source link. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Audio files

Excessive vandalism. Permanent semi protection suggested. --jdx Re: 05:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Protecting WLM-US pages

Hello! Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States starts Oct 1. Requesting semi-protection of the following pages through November 2 since they'll be highly-trafficked (and the main page linked via CentralNotice):

Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The pages have been protected. The style file is only editable by interface admins, pls correct me if I am wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Style file needs to be protected too, (perhaps surprisingly) anyone can edit style files. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done With action conflict :) 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please protect the file Young tableaux for 541 partition.svg

The file  File:Young tableaux for 541 partition.svg has been repeatedly modified by IP users, apparently for transmission of phone numbers or whatever strange purpose. Please let us protect this file against anonymous edition.

F (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for one year. Yann (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Test edit on the Main Page

Please revert this edit ASAP. It’s certainly not useful, and I’m pretty sure this is causes the Main Page to have no media of the day displayed. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: ✓ Done thanks to AntiCompositeNumber!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

File:ItaliaAlTempoDiAugusto_(expo_-25_contrasto_25).jpg

Please unprotect the file updating possibility. The page was protected because of a user, now inactive for 5 years, for ‘misuse of sources and NNPOV’. The page is a low-visibility uncontested subject. I'd like to correct a couple of names. Thanks! --Foghe (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Foghe: I removed the protection so anyone can now edit the page. De728631 (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar, India.jpg

Because of counter-productive edit warring by a user ongoing several days despite pending discussion, I hereby request temporary protection. Thanks in advance. Regards --A.Savin 13:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done I also removed rights from @Krok6kola: . These could be reinstated after this user agreed to stop edit warring. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: The issue was discussed at the Village Pump [4] on September 30, 2021 and A.Savin's categorization "People bathing in regular clothes" was dismissed as inappropriate. (Further, it was deemed inappropriate that he had fully protected the image, as an "involved admin".) It was against the request by the photographer on A.Savin's talk page. I had tried to discuss it on his talk page but it was fully protected at the time. A.Savin has a history of harassing me in content disputes. For that reason he was forbidden to block me or harass me as an "involved" admin. Further, there is no reason that this one image should be in 10 categories when no other images of that structure are. I request that this removal of my rights be reverted, since it was requested by an A.Savin who was involved. I have over 500,000 categorization edits and no other disputes. Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The edit-warring is now being continued [5], so I hereby request temporary full-protection and/or sanctions against the edit-warrior. @Yann: Thanks. Regards --A.Savin 17:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

New sock

29912mjforrestzjholder:

Sock of past accounts including Grap e29912 and Forrest29912 and has a whole history over on Wikipedia... Magitroopa (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Indeffed. --Achim (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Garena Free Fire Logo.svg

Please protect File:Garena Free Fire Logo.svg - test edits, vandalism. Best, Aranya (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for one month. Yann (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Flag of Australia.svg

Please fix the flag according to the discussion File_talk:Flag_of_Australia.svg#Commonwealth_star_is_missing--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Module:Reply to

Please apply template protection to Module:Reply to in order to match {{reply to}}, in order for the edit request at Template talk:Reply to § Module:Reply to to be completable. — ExE Boss (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Module:TNTFallback and Module:Transclude

Please apply template protection to:

— ExE Boss (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrator protected photo is actually a copyvio

The photo 2021 Balochistan earthquake destruction.jpg currently protected, and editable only by administrators because it will appear in the main page of wikipedia is a copyvio from [6], where the source mentioned is PHOTO: EXPRESS, and thus should be deleted. (sorry if this isn't the correct AN thread) --C messier (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@C messier: I've copyvio-tagged the image. Could you notify the guys over at :en about the problem? --Túrelio (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done --C messier (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

File:93W (Maring) 94W (Nando) fujiwara effect 2021-10-09 0000Z.jpg

Pls make Semi protection due the diruptive editing thank you HurricaneEdgar 07:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I semi-protected it for a month. Taivo (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Hoa112008 LTA sock

✓ Done. Indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

can you tag sock tag because i tag the userpage User:Hoahocphantu of sock i will triggered by edit fitler thank :)

✓ Done. I blocked the IP. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Locked. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
DMacks (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

File talk:Tmp 32458-El Pavo Real en la Vyshyvanka protege al hombre22109534.jpg

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I semi-protected it for a year. Taivo (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

File:28P 2021-04-11 0240Z.jpg

Pls make semi protection due the vandalism/disruptive IP user use by Hoa LTA HurricaneEdgar 13:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I semi-protected it for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Angrist, Josh Fall2015.jpg

Per the EXIF documentation of File:Angrist, Josh Fall2015.jpg (author is L. Barry Hetherington, which don't match with the uploader's account name), the file has problematic permission and will be eligible for {{Npd}} or deletion request. Can any administrators help by adding the NPD template/nominating the file for deletion? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Block IP user User talk:2600:6C40:5400:1D2B:8CBB:F80B:2C2D:4BB0

Please block this IP user, as they are leaving harassing/vandalism on my talk page. They have already been blocked on their main Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:6C40:5400:1D2B:8CBB:F80B:2C2D:4BB0. Citrivescence (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for one week. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This user is now vandalizing my Simple Wikipedia page [7]. Can an Admin here block that account, as well? I wasn't able to find an Admin noticeboard on Simple Wiki. Citrivescence (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Citrivescence: I don’t know why you couldn’t find the Simple AN: it’s at simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard just as one might expect. It’s also accessible from the “other languages” sidebar at COM:AN. Admins here can’t block on other projects unless they also happen to hold the same right over there.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This vandal also evidently uses 204.184.47.158, already blocked.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Citrivescence: ✓ Done, globally blocked for a year thanks to Defender.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Yuiyui2001 sockpuppet finds

Emperor1991z (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Keeps messing up maps for the Philippines, later and was after being creating and blocking users after when logging out, the user created again but can any sockpuppet-related users be locked? Aichi Message me 13:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@AichiWikiFixer: Stewards don't lock accounts of sockpuppets until the accounts of their sockmasters are locked, they don't lock based on this page, Checkusers don't check users based on this page, and the image in your signature needs to go per policy COM:SIGN#Images in signature.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but most of maps from the Philippines, but most of political maps that changed as now, and the user to be suspected later. Aichi Message me 13:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Joe Biden official portrait 2013.jpg, File:Joe Biden official portrait 2013 cropped.jpg

Requesting unprotection. Don't think full protection is necessary for these files, now that Biden has an official presidential portrait. RoanDM (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Blatant advertising using multiple accounts

These two accounts are uploading blatant advertising that are very similar to each other. Marbletan (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Warned; come back or ping me if they keep doing it. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Wiki Loves Monuments Logo notext.svg

Please protect File:Wiki Loves Monuments Logo notext.svg - excessive vandalism. Thanks! Aranya (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Semi-protected for a month. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:長宮優香里

長宮優香里 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This user only uploads pornographic images, lacking permission. Does not appear to be here to contribute educational content. --Askeuhd (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - Uploads nuked as blatant COM:NETCOPYVIOs. User given final warning. Эlcobbola talk 16:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

IP range block all use Hoa LTA

Hello, admin here there is IP user which use Hoa LTA This IP use by renaming i suggest that this is need range block all entire IP use LTA Thank you HurricaneEdgar 04:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneEdgar What IP? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: *mumble*privacypolicy*   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Kaiserstandarte Version1.svg

User:Wilhelm II, German Emperor seems to generate a self-produced edit war with this file, among others. I recommend to protect this file.--Fornax (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fornax Warned. If he keeps doing it, a block (even maybe a partial block) would probably be a better solution than protections. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, a block would be a better solution.--Fornax (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately he continues as a socket. Should be blocked now -Fornax (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Done: blocked sock indef and main 1 week for now. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Alejandra Bambina Jiménez Guzmán

Appears to be continuing where the blocked sock Ximena Sariñana Sariñana (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  left off, uploading copyvios to illustrate esWP (while quirkily catting them under Wikipedians). Evidently linked to this report from May, and by now part of a long series. Duck-like enough to block, or should this go to RfCU?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 It looks like a duck to me. Blocked. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

unprotect Sowmya_Menon

Kindly unprotect Sowmya_Menon — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 117.207.238.210 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What page is protected? File:Sowmya menon.jpg? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection for some logos

Please protect File:Logo Omegle.svg, File:Gmail icon (2020).svg, File:Stripchat-logo.svg - excessive vandalism. Aranya (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done semi for 1 month. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Reporting some accounts

List

Reason

Discussion

 Comment All these accounts use SEO tricks introduced in these videos: [8], [9], [10], [11]. They will upload several images, which are usually not found on the Internet; insert backlinks in the Summary section, and their websites will be on top in the search results of search engines (because Commons is a very high ranking website). I have seen some backlinks that are more than 1 year old. Now, this trick has become popular. P.T.Đ (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I added some accounts. ⁂๖ۣۜJon ♥ ๖ۣۜDaenerys໖ 13:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
✓[OK] List sorted. Unnamed UserName me 14:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Unnamed User and Nguyenhai314: Please sort them again and keep them sorted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done List sorted, again. (I didn't get that tag.) Unnamed UserName me 06:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: If "NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh" was a visible part of your signature, I would have been more inclined to copy it rather than "Unnamed User".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I have checked till Saigonline, blocked some of them, some just got contributions deleted (as uploads are old, for example). Others are free to continue checking, need to go right now rubin16 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I think I've checked the rest? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 Comment All accounts blocked for spamming, except
@Yann: Recently I found Vantaitoanquoc (talk · contribs). ⁂๖ۣۜJon ♥ ๖ۣۜDaenerys໖ 10:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Blocked. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I added Exporteder|Createrees|Molviewer|Molfile|Zyrosalate and moved Ccgreenvn.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I added Empress Qing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Check contributions User:Mymeyoumedia and protect some pages perhaps.

Check contributions by User:Mymeyoumedia and protect some pages perhaps. Satdeep Gill (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user indefinitely and cleaned history of 2 files. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

Excessive vandalism. --jdx Re: 00:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. The file is heavily used in many projects and suffers vandalism both from IP-s and non-IP-s since July, so I fully protected it for a year. I cleaned history (hided more than 30 edits). Taivo (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Infinite Prophet

Please block Infinite Prophet (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for uploading copyvios after the final warning. --Wcam (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 2 weeks. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Vẵng Đu

Continously uploads non-free files after tens of warning. Unnamed UserName me 15:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned the user. Copyvios are deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Goshlion

Goshlion (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : continuing to upload copyright violations after final warning. —Oscitare (talk | contribs) 09:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done One week block. Yann (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

!2o%Uv6PHBj6JfgYmfgqVx!SCEBEP4

Violation of the username as offensive username and confusing username, this username cannot be read properly and some of the words contain unicode characters. Vitaium (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. Yann (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

46.211.45.89

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 day. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Provinces of the Philippines.svg

File:Provinces of the Philippines.svg – please protect this file within a long period of time (duration to be determined by the admin), as it is used in a major Philippines-related article (en:Provinces of the Philippines), yet it is a target of vandalism by socks of Yuiyui2001 (talk · contribs). Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 year. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sema Gür

The user made changes by taking a username with the name of a well-known person (Sema Gür). It is against the policy, the user should be blocked. I request you to do what is necessary. Kind regards.--Kadıköylü (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @Mdaniels5757: . Regards.--Kadıköylü (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

BlaxkXing

BlaxkXing (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : continuing to upload copyright violations after final warning. —Oscitare (talk | contribs) 23:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 week. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Protections for software logos and screenshots

Please protect these files due to vandalism: File:Google Play Music icon (2016-2020).svg, File:Google Homepage.svg, and File:KineMaster 256px.png. Best regards, Aranya (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done; semi-protected for 1 year. --Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Flag of Kalmykia.svg

Please protect it against reuploading. It is target of sock puppets of Jurisdrew. --jdx Re: 07:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Upload prot for 6 months. --Achim (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please block User:郊外生活のサブ垢

Please Block 郊外生活のサブ垢 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .

Impersonation. The meaning of the username (Japanese) is 'sub-account of 郊外生活', but this is not mine.

In addition, this account did the same edit (Special:Diff/602204206) as User:Are you LMG? did (Special:Diff/600403755). Please make sure that there is no claim that File:Potential temperature and hydrostatic stability.jpg is copyvio. Furthermore, I think these accounts are sockpuppet of LMGsharu (talk · contribs) (w:ja:WP:VIP#LMGsharu); cross-wiki abuse. Thus I omitted to request to change the username, and reported to the Administrators' noticeboard.--郊外生活Kogaiseikatsu (talk,contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Etnyeonyetv

Etnyeonyetv (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : Continuously uploading files without any description, source, licensing etc. information provided. —Oscitare (talk | contribs) 00:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Moldovan language

User Лобачев Владимир keeps reverting me on Category:Moldovan language with no edit summaries or fake ones and restoring the category Category:Languages of Moldavia. We had a discussion on Wikidata [12] regarding the same issue and the discussion resulted in the user not being able to prove his POV (that the Moldovan language was spoken in the Principality of Moldavia). Moldovan was added as deprecated statements on two pages [13] [14]. They are lying about this however and saying the discussion ended in their favor [15]. Back to Commons, I asked for sources to be brought [16], but I got reverted with no justification [17]. They were now blocked from editing the page of the Moldovan language on Wikidata for 2 weeks [18]. Please take the necessary administrative measures and end this edit war. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Do not mislead in Wikidata your point of view that the Moldovan language does not exist, but that there is an exclusively Romanian language is not supported. There are different points of view, including the Pan-Romanian one. But it is wrong to ignore other points of view that exist among researchers. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. You haven't proven with international sources (non-Romanian, non-Russian) that the supposed Moldovan language was spoken in Moldavia. Anything else you've stated is unrelated. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Google Play Arrow logo.svg

Excessive vandalism. --jdx Re: 00:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Semi-protected for 6 months (3rd protection). --Achim (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

WP888

User has continued to upload copyright violations despite multiple direct warnings. Asking for a block to prevent further uploads. Images uploaded today also need deleting, they're copyright violations. At least the user is honest about where they are grabbing the images. Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - deleted and blocked a week. Эlcobbola talk 14:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

TajPharmaImages

TajPharmaImages (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  appears to be a sock of indefinitely blocked user Tajpharmagroup (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  that has been involved in spamming Commons in the past. See:

 Comment I blocked the user indefinitely and tagged him/her as sockpuppet, but did not delete anything. Taivo (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Upload the same picture from different accounts (same: File:Центр надання соціальних послуг.jpg, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Логотип Центру надання соціальних послуг Почаївської міської ради.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Логотип Центр надання соцііальних послуг.jpg) and other files, see contributions this users. --Микола Василечко (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

+ 1 Lainmeters (talk · contribs)
New sockpuppet.
See same file File:ЦНАП Почаївської міської ради.jpg --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Danawaz

Danawaz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : Continues to upload copyrighted files of planned architectural developments and stock photos. —Oscitare (talk | contribs) 01:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. I am not convinced, that the files uploaded after warning violate copyright. You can create a regular bulk deletion request explaining, why the files are copyvios. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Number cat

Request permanently template protection as there are more than 32,000 transclusions. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Logo Petróleos Mexicanos.svg

Requested indefinite upload protection. Persitent sockpuppetry. Refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Urbanuntil for more information. Tbhotch™ 20:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. File is really heavily used. As semi-protection did not help, I fully protected the file for a year. The last vandal is globally locked. Taivo (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sock(s) uploading files with bad metadata

Isaiah172 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) is blocked on enwiki as a sock of PaullyMatthews (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ).

They uploaded File:Yusuf Ali Kenadid.jpg, which seems to be another scan of File:Sultan ali yusuf.jpg, specifically to add it to en:Yusuf Ali Kenadid (I reverted an earlier attempt to add the other file to the article, because the metadata seems to say it's a picture of en:Ali Yusuf Kenadid rather than one of Yusuf Ali Kenadid –notice the reversed order of the names).

The result is that Commons now has two identical pictures, one saying it's a picture of en:Ali Yusuf Kenadid and another one saying it's a picture of en:Yusuf Ali Kenadid.

There may be more socks here, as well as more bad uploads, so I would recommend that someone who is more experienced than me around here look into this. Apaugasma (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted one as bad quality duplicate. Please ask for renaming the other one if appropriate. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I warned Isaiah172 and deleted all his uploads. Paully Matthews has only 1 upload here, so I do not want to block him. Taivo (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Миодраг Крагуљ

Here are another sock of Миодраг Крагуљ, uploading copyrighted images of people related to Serbian Orthodox Church in same manner. Also all uploads should be deleted as copyvios.

--Smooth O (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked, tagged, deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

2405:9800:ba00::/40

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the IP range for a month. Thanks for reverting vandalism! Taivo (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks, and you're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User Talk:Tegel

Hi. Consider semi-protecting my talk page due to ongoing vandalism. -- Tegel (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Considering vandalism going from years and years, I indefinitely semi-protected the page. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tegel and Taivo: Thanks! I guess the nuisance value finally outweighed the honeypot value.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Change protection for User:Spangineer/license

I set up a separate page with licensing information for inclusion on my images (User:Spangineer/license), and then (back when I was an admin) fully protected it. Now I'm not an admin, but I'd like to be able to edit this page. Can an admin reduce the protection level to semi-protected? Thanks. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 14:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. You can also apply for template editor right in COM:RFR. Taivo (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

block User:David mystery books research

I blocked this user from en.wp for disruptive editing. They've been doing the same here, and have made it clear they are the same person who was operating the globally-locked IP User:47.234.198.142. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment As anyone here will tell you, we don't care what users do on other projects, we apply COM:AGF (Para. 1). I don't see any disruptive editing here. I see a new user who needs time to bed in with some of our policies and could benefit from mentoring, but we don't do that here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the condescending, dismissive answer. If any actual admins are around, and would look past Rod's very shallow take on the situation, they may note that the IP they claim as their own has been already been blocked here, on Commons for disruption, and the account has uploaded copyvios and junk personal files of no value. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. User is globally blocked for 3 months, edits in Commons are reverted. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: The former IP is globally locked, yes. The username remains unactioned.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. Oh, yes, my mistake. I must agree Rodhullandemu here. I do not see blockable offences in Commons. There are some now-deleted copyvios, but the user isn't even warned. You can warn him if you like, but at moment I do not want to block David. Taivo (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: , isn't that kind of ignoring the fact that the IP and the named account are self-disclosed as the same person, and that they were operating the account while the IP was blocked? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
How do you know? Look at the guy and his contributions, he's a college student. How can you tell it's not a shared router? Checkuser? Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: This edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't say he's the only one using that IP address. It says he knows what his IP address it. So do I know mine. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Half their edits are about the IP address. They uploaded an audio file talking about it. They are basically obsessed with talking about it. Perhaps there's some other reason you are bound and determined not to see it? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
If you mean File:Voice communications anything.ogg, OK, it's mostly nonsense but he doesn't refer to a specific IP address. In other words, it can't be relied upon for any sort of admission or corroboration. Now look here, I'm an empiricist, which means I go by the available evidence. As you may know, I'm also a qualified and experienced lawyer with a masters in criminology, and obviously I am alive to miscarriages of justice. So that's my motivation here, principally that the reputation of Commons should not be lowered to that of Wikipedia and become associated with cavalier applications of the block button, the ban hammer and the desysop that throws the baby out with the bath water. Snidey imputations of other motives are improper, a breach of COM:AGF and COM:NPA, and should be dealt with. Maybe this guy will become a useful user; maybe he won't. I'm not optimistic, but OTOH, I'm not prepared to shoot a newbie down in flames from torches and pitchforks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI, the account has been globally locked as Long-term abuse. I have noticed the account before it was reported here and it has stunk since the beginning. BTW, COM:AGF is a recommendation so no one is forced to follow it (although they should to). COM:NPA is not even a recommendation. So I do not think it is possible to breach them. --jdx Re: 01:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I and another user both posted reports at meta about the obvious lock evasion. Luckily the stewards have more sense than to just assume the worst just because of who was doing the reporting. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Or will believe anything they're told without conducting a proper investigation. It's a lot easier that way. OTOH, I may have been wrong, but I do believe in due process. Unlike others. Let's just make it up as we go along, and nobody will care. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's enough, you two. The user is now globally locked. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:GreeneCountyGeneralHospital

GreeneCountyGeneralHospital (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has username policy violation as a promotional username, it represents a business name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaium (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

File:1994 Holden Barina (SB) Joy 3-door hatchback (2015-06-18).jpg

Excessive vandalism. --jdx Re: 16:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Bhushan S Mahajan

Self-promotion seems to be the sole focus of this user. Uploading selfies and vanity shots and just randomly inserting their own name on pages. Was blocked once before for exactly the same thing, obviously they did not get the point. previous discussion Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Never-ending edit wars by User:Лобачев Владимир

User:Лобачев Владимир has repeatedly violated and disregarded Wikimedia's policies. He has edit-warred countless times, and these are just a few concrete cases (just take a look at the histories): 1, 2, 3, and 4, 5 and many, many more could be shown, but you get the idea. In the 3rd case he reverted edits that were agreed upon by the consensus of four different users: me, Ke an, Pofka, Super Dromaeosaurus. This case is the most serious, because he reverted the edits of four different users 11 consecutive times! Лобачев Владимир knows that he is behaving incorrectly and was explicitly told that he would be reported in the talk page. It is known that he read it, because he responded to it. This cannot be brushed aside as something minor, and as warnings have not worked in the past, only blocking will stop him from going against the established policies.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I fully agree that this user should be blocked for disruptive behavior as he simply ignores any warnings, decisions of other users and only attempts to spread his own opinion. He absolutely rejects others opinion which does not match his opinion and aggressively starts edit warring. A total of 11 reverts against four good faith editors is a truly disruptive behavior and there is no other way to stop him without the interfere of the administrators. Лобачев Владимир actions clearly violates Commons:Assume good faith. -- Pofka (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Pofka and Cukrakalnis, a general report of this user has been attempted many times and it has always failed. I was once reported by him on Wikidata and there we had a debate with an admin about whether "Moldovan" was spoken in the Principality of Moldavia or not. Лобачев Владимир could ultimately not prove it and has never pushed this POV as much as before ever since. The best way of dealing with this user is through small steps, general reports aiming for their block (which, to be honest, could be too much, they make good edits when not POV-pushing about Moldova or Lithuania, a topic ban could be good enough) always failed.
For other users, this report originates from a dispute at Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Лобачев Владимир has attempted to add the categories of Category:Seals of Belarus and Category:Seals of Ukraine to this category. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was big, covering most (or all) of the modern territory of these two countries. The reasoning of this user is the following: "The Republic of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine have the same rights to the inheritance of the principality.", "The Republic of Lithuania is not Hungary" (heh), "Revert the consensus version." (I want to note this is a normal thing of this user, to mention an unexistant consensus, I can give more examples if asked to), "There is not a single document that the Republic of Lithuania inherits the rights of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.", "It is also the historical territory of Belarus and Ukraine." and "This is the historical territory of Belarus". These are all the edit summaries he gave justifying his actions on the category's history page. I think we can all agree geographic location does not justify labelling something of a historical country to be part of another. This is not the methodology we use in categories such as Category:Seals of medieval Hungary (which was this big [19] in the Middle Ages) or Category:Seals of medieval Sweden (which was this big [20], not a medieval map but in the Middle Ages Sweden included Finland). Same with Category:Coats of arms of the Russian Empire, we only include categories of Russia, not of the many other modern countries that used to be part of Russia. We should do the same in this case.
Unfortunately, I am afraid logic by geographical location is not the real intention of this user. There is a certain movement in Belarus known as Litvinism which claims the GD of Lithuania to be Belarusian in fact and that Lithuania is a recent nation. This is a fringe theory only supported by some Belarusians and a few Russians and Poles from what I see. Pofka and Cukrakalnis (and Ke an if they are Lithuanian too, I am not sure) can give more information about this. Anyway, Лобачев Владимир is pushing edits supporting points in common with Litvinism, which I think everyone can agree that is not neutral. It also does not go in line with consistency with other cases of seals/coats of arms of historical countries. If anyone wonders if Litvinism has anything to do with Ukraine, no, it doesn't, but this user is probably also pushing an Ukrainian category because it wouldn't make any sense to only support adding the Belarusian one and could expose their POV (note that in many of their edit summaries they only mention Belarus and not Ukraine too anyway).
I thus ask in the name of all concerned users I believe that an administrator warns Лобачев Владимир about restoring these edits on Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and other similar pages and monitors the category linked on this paragraph. There are several other cases of disruptive POV pushing from this user, but it can look like slight POV pushing against other slight POV pushing to editors not knowledgable on the area. I believe this is what has allowed this user to continue with these acts for so long, that they don't look that bad when isolated. However, they are building up. For now this report should only focus on this particular case, but here's a link to another report on Wikidata that I mentioned above in which Лобачев Владимир was not able to confirm his POV: [21] (see Moldovan as a deprecated statement on a Wikidata page as a result of the report: [22]). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
To further prove Super Dromaeosaurus's point that Лобачев Владимир is pushing a POV, there are cases like this: 1 - he keeps adding categories like "Historical coat of arms of Belarus", which is false, because, as I wrote in the edit summary, "Not a Historical coat of arms of Belarus, because Belarus did not exist at the time and so this cannot be a historical coat of arms of something that didn't exist", to which Лобачев Владимир replied "This is the historical territory of Belarus.". This is obviously false, as most of the pictures in the category were in Saxony and contained Polish and Lithuanian coat of arms, so the introduction of Belarus is a clear indication that Лобачев Владимир has a Litvinist POV which Super Dromaeosaurus already mentioned.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a pushing through the Lithuanian point of view that the entire history of Belarus (and also of Ukraine) until 1917 is part of the history of the Republic of Lithuania, but not the history of Belarus. I ask administrators to stop national pushing. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Classic answer of Лобачев Владимир. With no arguments, no points to state or defend whatsoever. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You do not have any sources confirming the right of the Republic of Lithuania to the history and territory of Belarus. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There is absolutely no pushing of anything. Ukraine and Belarus are modern countries. Lithuania was first mentioned in 1009 (reference from Europa.eu). That's neutral point of view. We do not insert categories of countries which did not existed at the time. -- Pofka (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Lithuania was first mentioned in 1009. It seems to me that you are confusing the Republic of Lithuania, which appeared in 1917, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. These are still different countries: both in time, and in territory, and in the state language. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Belarusian source published in Belarus. Clearly not valid, if our aim is to get a neutral view from sources. We should be also not be using Lithuanian sources, only international ones of countries not related to Belarus or Lithuania. Which means it'd be ideal to avoid using Polish or Russian sources too. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
You and I do not have to decide which source is neutral and which is non-neutral. Our goal is to reflect what is available, first of all, in scientific sources. And if there are discrepancies in the sources, then all points of view should be reflected. Moreover, this is not a point of view, but a fact. The main territory is Slavic, the main language is Slavic, the main traditions are Slavic. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Here are Ukrainian and Polish sources about the name of the state.

Ruth. Великое князство Литовское, Руское, Жомойтское и иныхъ (Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other)

Source 1: Mykhailo Hrushevsky Miscellanea. Примітки до тексту Галицько-Волинської рукописї, с. 7, pdf p. 45 // Записки Наукового товариства імені Шевченка, том VIII, 1895, кн. 4. Львів, 1895. Source 2: Marian Gumowski. Pieczęcie książąt litewskich // Ateneum Wileńskie[pl]. Wilno, 1930. Rok VII. — Zeszyt 3–4. — s. 725 --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Here is a German source

6.1.1 Cornerstones of Historical Developments.
The first noteworthy period of Belarusian history was in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries – a period that relates to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. This is also known as the Golden Age of Lithuanian and Old Belarusian culture. The Old Belarusian dialect not only served as the official language of the state, it was also the language of culture and education. Trade relations with the West brought the Lithuanian-Belarusian Grand Duchy into closer contact with the European humanist tradition of education. Following the division of the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian Republic in 1772–1795, the territory of Belarus fell under the power of the Russian Empire for the next 150 years. During this time, both the Belarusian language and culture (as was the case with Polish and Lithuanian) were prohibited.

The Education Systems of Europe, p. 78 --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Another source.

In the GDL at the end of the fourteenth century, only one out of nine people was of Lithuanian origin (O'Connor, 2003), i.e., almost all the rest were Ruthenians. At that time the word 'Russian' meant Ruthenian. But, the official language of the GDL was Old Belarusian. Starting from the early fourteenth century, the full name of GDL was The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia, the last a region in northwestern Lithuania.

Evidence for Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Source from the Stockholm University:

The name of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia (the full official name) appears in three variants in its most popular abbreviated form - the GDL (known in contemporary Latin, Polish and Ruthenian sources as MDL, W.X.L or ВКЛ)

Source: In the Shadows of Poland and Russia: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Sweden in the European Crisis of the Mid-17th Century, Stockholm University, 2006, p. 4. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the quotes on the userpage of this user and their use of clearly Litvinist terminology such as "Lietuva" are not neutral. One thing is to have different POVs, another is to openly and blatantly deny the existance of an ethnic group in your userpage and expect to be taken neutrally and seriously. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment lt:Lietuva is an own name of the country, using an own name is a sing of courtesy. And «openly and blatantly deny the existance of an ethnic group in your userpage» is a clear lie (or even calumny) and obviously has nothing to do with reality. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Litvinists hatred against Lithuania (a state which traces its history since at least 1009) with pseudoscientific arguments continues. Kazimier Lachnovič openly shows his national hatred against Lithuania and requests for a a neutral point of view. Haha. Lithuania and Lithuanians ruled Belarus (Britannica) and Ukraine (Britannica article). These are facts of history. It is not our problem that some individuals doesn't like their history and wants to rewrite it. We seek for a scientific approach here. -- Pofka (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Kazimier Lachnovič is saying things that would obviously be dismissed as nonsensical in any other context. To illustrate this, just think how it would look if someone called modern Germany exclusively Deutschland and modern Germans - Deutsche while writing in English, all as a sign of supposed courtesy, but then turn around and claim that the German Empire and its Germans were actually only similar to Germany by virtue of name and it was actually a Polish state. Such idiocy would infuriate any clear-thinking individual. By calling modern Lithuanians "Lietuvans" while writing in English is an implicit denial of Lithuanian history, as the historical Lithuanians, from which modern Lithuanians are obviously descended, are distorted into "Litvins" and presented as something totally unrelated to modern Lithuanians. (Go see Litvinism). Such ahistorical Belarusian POV has nothing to do with reality.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
And why did this Grand Duchy of Lithuania belong to the Lithuanians? It is a Balto-Ruthenian state with the main territory of Ruthenia, a Ruthenian population and a Ruthenian language. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Questionable uploads by User:Gavcleaveland2211

Gavcleaveland2211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I'm an admin on English Wikipedia; I became aware of this account after a user attempted to add this BBC Wales logo to Wikipedia, which is a laughable MS Paint job. All of the uploads by this user range from downright silly (e.g. this, whatever it's supposed to be] to likely made-up like this one. I see that a few others are already nominated by others for deletion (File:BBC Good Food Logo.jpg,File:Bbc hd logo 2021.jpg). I'd recommend a block, and possibly nuking all of this user's contributions from orbit. Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the user stopped after his uploads were nominated for deletion. At moment I do not want to do anything. Taivo (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Infrogmation blocked the user for 2 weeks, uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Bule Cloud a sockpuppet of globally blocked Euro2024

Bule Cloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a clear (duck) a sockpuppet of globally blocked Euro2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), based on the continual rename requests that do not meet the criteria and follows the same renaming style (including the files). Bidgee (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting checkuser on w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euro2024. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed on enwiki; globally locked. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Kim Khánh Hoàng

This user uploaded an image, and pretended that this image is reviewed. This kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated, and should be stopped immediately --182.239.87.213 03:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Kim for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Sockenpuppentanz.jpg and File:Sockenpuppentanz2.jpg

Targets of sock puppets of globally banned user Rgalo10. --jdx Re: 07:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, both protected for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hdepayns and MajorTom52

User:Hdepayns uploaded 2 copyvio photos + copyvio text on en.wikipedia. The user was subsequently banned on en.wikiepedia, but has created a sockpuppet User:MajorTom52 and uploaded the same copyvio image, taken from Google Street view: File:17QueensGatePlace.png. Cardofk (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User User:MajorTom52 is a work colleague of mine who I asked to verify the use of the street view google image on Collingham College. Owing to independent research, the image was upload which knowledge it is in the public domain to do so. I don't see how I could create a sock puppet that has an older account than my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdepayns (talk • contribs) 13:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hdepayns and MajorTom52: What makes you think that an image copyrighted by Google is in the public domain? Please read COM:L and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked Hdepayns indefinitely as sockpuppet and warned Major Tom. All their uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Sameloins

Sameloins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in cross-wiki disruption (mostly Commons and Wikidata) adding copyright violations, rapidly removing speedy deletion tags and re-adding the images to Wikidata. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There is probably also a sockpuppet Hivederby (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) who reuploaded File:Berta Castañé photo.jpg with the same copyvio version that Sameloins had provided before. De728631 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Likely found another sock: Pakbasil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) IronGargoyle (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. I blocked and tagged master and both sockpuppets. All uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

semi-protection request for User talk:郊外生活

Please semi-protect User talk:郊外生活 (hist • logs • abuse log) because out-of-scope posting has been repeated. I think these contributors are sockpuppets of LMGsharu (talk · contribs); globally locked abuse user mainly appears in jawiki; w:ja:WP:VIP#LMGsharu.--郊外生活Kogaiseikatsu (talk,contribs) 06:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@郊外生活: Please feel free to report global lock evasion at m:srg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done: Semi for 1 month. --Achim55 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Block IP address 89.250.166.112

Please, block this IP address because of vandalism. See also contributions. --Kanasalaatti (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@De728631: Please note that this IP has been persistently used for vandalism since 12th October, so one day block is probably way too short. --jdx Re: 17:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jdx: That is a good point. I have extended the block to a month, so let's see how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

File:ArtAndFeminism 2017 Livrustkammaren 06.jpg

Excessive vandalism. --jdx Re: 16:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for File:Sleeping Beauty Castle 2019.jpg

For on-going vandalism since Oct. 26. That specific IP user is also removing structured data from other files. So we might also want other actions against them.--Tiger (Talk) 20:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I was about to say semi-protection for it, whatever.-Tiger (Talk) 21:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done: Semi-protected for 3 months. --Achim55 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Jdx

Please semi-protect it for a month. --jdx Re: 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting protection for the GIF_progress page.

I created that page above which is full of broken links, but many of those links were deleted by this this bot: CommonsDelinker. All of those broken links are meant to be there, so I request(if it is possible) protection against that bot, or bots. FanNihongo (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I banned all bots from the page. Next time you can do it yourself. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. FanNihongo (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mckennalee0719

Continues to upload copyvios despite warnings. --Denniss (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week. All uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Adrian 888532

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. No edits after you warned him. I'll delete the last remaining upload as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Freylead

Just another sock of blocked User:Coalvolts uploading lots of copyvios. Operating under 151.47.162.77 at wikidata. --Denniss (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Denniss: Why are you not notifying the user(s) concerned, as required above?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
why should I notify obvious socks? --Denniss (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Denniss: Because that's a rule on this noticeboard. Why didn't you notify Mckennalee0719?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
There's no need to notify obvious socks or users that have been warned a trillion times. --Denniss (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Denniss: Where is the consensus for that?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: A rule? It looks like mere advice to me. I don't see anything here or in the template description that says it is required. Brianjd (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikitha2007

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Changed to indef per socking with LIL NIRDI to continue copyvios. Эlcobbola talk 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757 and Эlcobbola: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Logo protections

Please semi-protect due to vandalism:

Best regards, Bridget (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I cleaned their history and semi-protected them all indefinitely due to massive vandalism from different IP-s. Taivo (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Rule violation COM: CAT

For better file structure in categories Category:Vytis Category:National coats of arms of Lithuania Category:Historical national coats of arms of Lithuania subcategories were created Category:National coats of arms of Lithuania in 1918-1940 Category:National coats of arms of Lithuania in 1990-1991

However, the member Cukrakalnis deletes from the files Category:National coats of arms of Lithuania in 1990-1991, under a far-fetched pretext

There is no need to specify that a coat of arms is national. If it says "Coat of arms of Lithuania", that is sufficient to understand that it is a national one. It is better to delete that superflous category.

The participant also refuses to rename.

The fact that the coat of arms in 1990 differed from the modern one can be seen from the drawings officially published by envelopes, stamps and coins, as well as in page Commons:Deletion requests/File:National coat of arms of Lithuania in 1990-1991.gif. But the participant does not want to wait for the outcome of the discussion and makes a decision himself what is right and what is wrong.

I ask you to take measures to protect Category:National coats of arms of Lithuania in 1990-1991, which allows you to quickly navigate the periods of different versions of the coats of arms of the Republic of Lithuania, and unload unsorted mega-categories. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of files that were in this category:
  1. File:Coat of arms of Lithuania 1990 from an envelope.png‎
  2. File:Lithuanian postal envelope with the coat of arms. 1990.jpg
  3. File:Lithuania 1991 MiNr0491 B002.jpg
  4. File:Stamp printed in Lithuania state arms Vytis 1991.svg
  5. File:5centas 1991 Lietuva.png
  6. File:5 litai coin (1991).jpg
  7. File:2 centai (1991).jpg
  8. File:Lithuania 1991 FDC MiNr481&482 B002.jpg
  9. File:Lithuania 1991 MiNr0481 B002.jpg
  10. File:Lithuania 1991 MiNr0480 B002.jpg
  11. File:Lithuania 1991 MiNr0472 SBpart B002.jpg
  12. File:1991-lithuania-Mi467.jpg‎
  13. File:1991-lithuania-Mi465.jpg
  14. File:Stamp printed in Lithuania state arms Vytis 1991.jpg
  15. File:1991-lithuania-Mi466.jpg
  16. File:Lithuania 1991 MiNr0473 B002.jpg
  17. File:National coat of arms of Lithuania in 1990-1991.gif --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
If you read COM: CAT, you can see the Universality principle. This principle contradicts the existence of your categories because your actions are exceptional in the wider context. Out of the 20 pages mentioned in the template at the top of Historical national coats of arms of ..., there is only one other category that has a country name & (beginning year - end year), i.e. . So, your actions are the exception to the rule and instead of me, it is Лобачев Владимир who goes against COM: CAT.
Moreover, it is false to accuse me of trying to stop the unloading of mega-categories (which Лобачев Владимир implicitly seems to do), as I have put a lot of effort in doing precisely that by creating the following categories: Category:Columns of Gediminas on Lithuanian seals, Category:Columns of Gediminas in the Lithuanian military, Category:Columns of Gediminas on Lithuanian monuments, Category:Columns of Gediminas on Lithuanian stamps, Category:Columns of Gediminas on Lithuanian banknotes. As you can see, I unloaded 189 files (if I counted correctly) from the mega-category Category:Columns of Gediminas into 5 categories. Another example is with Category:Vytis, for which I created the categories Category:Vytis on Lithuanian banknotes and Category:Vytis on Lithuanian coins. My actions helped better categorize the Category:Coats of arms of Lithuania on coins.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
As for the accusation with regards to the discussion, there wasn't any that I was aware of at the time, and Лобачев Владимир's accusation shows his dishonesty, as he denied the consensus of 4 editors and engaged in other rule-breaking activities, as enumerated here.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Qareken Balasi

Qareken Balasi - copyvio uploading after multiple warnings. In ruwiki demonstrated misunderstanding of copyright principles. --Drakosh (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I warned him and deleted a lot of empty categories and other unhelpful contributions. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

2402:800:6000::/38

SCP-2000 10:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the IP range for a week and reverted more edits. Taivo (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Flag of France.svg

Recently, Macron had admitted that he changed the blue of the French flag. However, the File:Flag of France.svg was locked and cannot be replaced with a new shade (for context) SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I think, like you said, that it’s too early [25][26] unless we hear an official announcement and colour codes. If the protection is removed, people will probably edit war. --Thibaut (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Storeindya44 and sock Storeindya45

Storeindya44 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  was recently blocked for 3 months for spamming (uploading files that are items for sale on storeindya.com, with links to purchase the products). See Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Storeindya44. The new user Storeindya45 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is an obvious sock, uploading the same types of images with the same links to storeindya.com to purchase the products. I suggest indefinitely blocking Storeindya45 and changing Storeindya44's 3 month block to indefinite as well. Marbletan (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

All files of S45 are nominated for deletion, sockpuppet is indefinitely blocked. I want to give the master S44 last chance. Taivo (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:1882xyz

User keep violated COM:OVERWRITE at File:Wilhelm-Hausenstein-Gymnasium - 2.JPG despite warnings. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see they haven't edited since 5 days, 1 more time overwrite = block. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Wilhelm-Hausenstein-Gymnasium - 2.JPG

Request upload protection for File:Wilhelm-Hausenstein-Gymnasium - 2.JPG, as user repeatably violated COM:OVERWRITE--A1Cafel (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, only 1 user, 1 more time overwrite = block. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Kaijeaw.3431

Kaijeaw.3431 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploading copyvios after final warning. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. One week block. Taivo (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Stevens002

These four accounts are obviously socks of each other. They are all uploading copyrighted images from the same website (niclosam.com), apparently as product promotion, and presumably using the multiple accounts in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Marbletan (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved
Thanks for blocking those accounts. I was not able to find a source for File:Niclosamide Bulk Powder.jpg either, that's why I marked it with {{No source}} rather than with {{Copyvio}} like all the others. (I thinks it's safe assumption that it's a copyvio though.) I'll look into the Checkuser request. Marbletan (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Apollovvv

Apollovvv (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploading copyvios after final warning, including license laundering. --Vaishakh1234 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the user for a week and nominated one more image for deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
As a related request, please also blacklist Flickr user "renwu66" (91325288@N08) for Flickrwashing, in which Apollovvv uploaded laundered images from that Flickr account.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Protections for vandalism

These files have received excessive vandalism, please semi-protect.

Also, the first three have pretty extensive histories of unconstructive edits - not sure if a history clean is warranted. Thank you! Best, Bridget (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Semiprotected all of them, the first 3 for 1 year, the 4th for 3 months. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Deceiving File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg categorization

The user Cukrakalnis has several times placed in Category: Fictional flags of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania an image of a phage published in an authoritative book on heraldry by a Belarusian historian and heraldist. Despite the cancellations, he did it several times (one, two, three, four, five). I ask you to protect the file and warn the participant about the inadmissibility of such behavior. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The justification for my actions in File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg is that it is impossible that someone can come along 200 years ago after the destruction of a country and then claim to have found its flag. This is literally the only case of this flag, and claiming that it is legitimate is absolute nonsense. In addition, the precise design of the Vytis, the leaping knight, in this flag is taken directly from Juozas Zikaras. File:Older_version_of_Lithuania_COA.png is the original from which Лобачев Владимир designed File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg. It is incorrect, to say the least, to use a 20th-century design and 21st-century book, as a solid, undeniable proof of "this is the real historical flag of the country".
In addition, I will point out that the user Лобачев Владимир has deceivingly categorized files such as this flag into Category:SVG historical flags of Belarus, regardless of the fact that an independent Belarus appeared only in 1918 (many sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica attest to this). Regardless, he talks about "chauvinism" (here), while reverting the removals of this inaccurate category a total of 11 times: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Then, in this edit he suddenly decided to put this flag in Category:Fictional flags of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I reverted that, because that was incorrect. Moreover, it is bizarre that a user would add "historical" and "fictional" categories to the same file, as these two categories are contradictory.
I must point out that such actions of mass reverting by the user Лобачев Владимир are commonplace and he has engaged in such counter-productive activities very frequently, e.g. here and many other times.
Already in late October, I asked for concrete actions in this very page that Лобачев Владимир's never-ending edit-wars be somehow stopped, but nothing happened. In that case, Лобачев Владимир denied the consensus of four editors, and continued going against what was decided, exemplifying WP:ICANTHEARYOU. No action was taken when it needed to be, and the result is this quagmire of edit wars in topics related to Lithuania.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Thus, it is up to the user to decide which sources are correct and which are incorrect (no original research). And, in order to push through his opinion, he is ready to take the path of the war of edits. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense, Лобачев Владимир is accusing others of what he himself is guilty. His actions are clear demonstrations of Wikipedia:WP:OR, as he keeps adding categories related to Belarus, regardless of the fact that those categories do not belong where he places them.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
As for Лобачев Владимир's reproach about the edit wars, it is two-faced to blame on others things that are only attributable to Лобачев Владимир's actions, such as those when he denies the consensus of 4 editors and engages in other rule-breaking activities, as enumerated in my complaint which I submitted to this noticeboard in late October regarding this user's actions, which did not result in anything concrete. This lack of action is now obvious to have been detrimental to the wider community. Unfortunately, as Лобачев Владимир did not stop and was not stopped then, this lead to never-ending and still continuing (!) edit-wars in Lithuania-related files, e.g. here.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment User Cukrakalnis left a deceptive statement here about the mentioned reliable source: «As for the book itself, it has many issues, like frequently putting the words Lithuania and Lithuanians in "..."». Actually there are no «putting the words Lithuania and Lithuanians in "..."» in the mentioned book. Unless the user provides the direct references with page numbers, I believe that such obvious misleading manipulations should have certain consequences for that user. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Concrete examples of where the words Lithuania and Lithuanians are in "..." is on page 116 of the book by Anatol Tsitou, where that is done as many as 3 times. Considering this undeniable fact, it is obvious that the real misleading manipulations and lies are not perpetrated by me.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Simple checking the page 125, where the modern nation-state known as Republic of Lithuania (which own name is lt:Lietuva) is described, proves that are no any "..." for Belarusian Літвы, Літоўскай рэспублікі, літоўскі etc. The cited by user part is about the beginning of the 19th century, when the «Lithuanian» (in both meaning modern and historical) state didn't exist. Such user's selectivity (to ignore direct facts and to emphasis the minor and irrelevant ones) is just an another prove that the user is trying to find anything suitable to discard the reliable source they don't like. I still believe that such obvious misleading manipulations should have certain consequences for that user. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Here again, under deeper inspection, it can be seen that Kazimier Lachnovič's statements do not correlate with reality, past or present. That book is full of nonsense, such as "The Republic of Lithuania, which emerged during this period, chose the ancient Slavic coat of arms as its state emblem" [Узнікшая ў гэты перыяд Літоўская рэспубліка абрала старажытны славянскі герб у якасці свайго дзяржаўнага.] (last line, page 122) and "In a certain way, this was embodied through the innermost claims of the Lithuanian bourgeoisie to the subjection of the ancestral Belarusian lands to it. It is impossible not to say." [Пэўным чынам угэтым увасобіліся праз патаемныя прэтэнзіі літоўскай буржуазіі на падуладнасць ёй спрадвечных беларускх земляў. Нельга не сказаць.] (first line, page 125) [I used google translate for them, but the original sentences are next to them if you want to check]. Such statements are Belarusian chauvinism, pure and simple, and claims about this being reliable in any sense are false. If such things were published in English, they would be immediately dismissed as baseless en:Belarusian nationalism.
When speaking about historic Lithuania, Kazimier Lachnovič tends to Slavicize/Belarusianize it as much as possible. Basically, en:Litvinism. As for the meaning of the term "Lithuanian", Kazimier Lachnovič's statement is nonsense, considering that a clear distinction between inhabitants of en:Lithuania proper and en:White Rus was always made. Claims about Lithuanian identity in the 19th century being different from now in the precise sense that Kazimier Lachnovič says it, are refuted by simply looking at this book from 1825 (Precisely the era we are talking about), written by pl:Stanisław Plater: Jeografia wschodniéy części Europy czyli Opis krajów przez wielorakie narody słowiańskie zamieszkanych : obejmujący Prussy, Xsięztwo Poznańskie, Szląsk Pruski, Gallicyą, Rzeczpospolitę Krakowską, Krolestwo Polskie i Litwę. Many more writings would show that, but I am showing Plater's writing to demonstrate it concretely. There is an obvious distinction between Lithuanians (Litwinów), Ruthenians (Rusinów) and Russians (Rossyanów), as is evident on pages 195, 206 and 215. Lithuanians ARE viewed as an ethnic group already way before 1863, as the Lithuanians (the en:Prussian Lithuanians) that were not in the Lithuanian State, i.e. Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but in the Kingdom of Prussia, were explicitly said to be Lithuanians (Litwinów), as seen on page 17.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Moreover, this is not about any special selectivity, manipulation or "irrelevant" things, but the fact of the matter is that the book by Anatol Tsitou is dubious as a source and should not be used as such, owing to its outright false statements, which obviously demonstrate en:Belarusian nationalism and en:Litvinism. Kazimier Lachnovič is only pretending that this book is a reliable source because it suits his own very biased and distorted view of history, which denies basic facts. Such behaviour should not be allowed.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment User's personal opinion is obviously not a valid reason to discard any reliable source. Unless the user gives reliable sources directly criticized the particular book, I really don't see a sound reason to waste time on the discussion some user's personal opinion, especially when this opinion is clearly biased. Still I'll be glad to clarify the situation if any questions left. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Chauvinism does not discredit a source in Kazimier Lachnovič's view and he continues calling it "reliable". This is no longer a question of opinion, but following basic rules of the Wikisphere as a whole. Neither does Kazimier Lachnovič address any arguments, something that is most likely a result of him being unable to address my valid arguments. As for "opinion is clearly biased", that is just a baseless accusation. Actually, Kazimier Lachnovič is accusing others of what he himself is guilty.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If it was an image of a real historical coat of arms, it would be found in some manuscript or elsewhere, which so far has not been shown or demonstrated. I am against censorship of real historical coat of arms and myself am an enthusiast in them - I have myself uploaded many of them, e.g. File:Flag of Vytautas the Great with a standing knight of Kęstutaičiai and Lithuanian Vytis (Waikymas), used during the Council of Constance in 1416.jpg, File:Gedimino bokštai. Columns of Gediminas. 1416.jpg, File:1416. Lithuanian Coat of arms of a wolf, perhaps symbolizing Valkaviskas.jpg, File:1416. Lithuanian CoA yellow cross on a black background.jpg, File:1416. Lithuanian Coat of arms of the Sun symbolizing Podolia.jpg, File:1416. Lithuanian Coat of arms of an Angel, perhaps symbolizing Naugardukas or Kyiv.jpg, File:1416. Lithuanian Coat of arms of an Old Man symbolizing the lands of Trakai.jpg, File:Lithuanian COA blue and white stripes. 1416.jpg, File:1416. Lithuanian Coat of arms of the Samogitian Bear.jpg, and File:Jogailaičių dvigubas kryžius. Jogailaičiai dynasty's double-cross. 1416.jpg. The problem is that this flag is precisely ahistorical, or at the very least something is wrong about it, maybe the caption, name or the dates. That is the problem, instead of some supposed censorship.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Миодраг Крагуљ

Here are another sock of Миодраг Крагуљ, uploading copyrighted images of people related to Serbian Orthodox Church in same manner.

Smooth O (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Taivo (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Frypie

I've just notified Frypie (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  of a copyright violation and discovered that their talk page is full of such warnings. As far as I can discover, this editor is not blocked at Commons. A block from uploading will prevent further copyvios being added. Would suggest that all this editors uploads are scrutinised as it seems to me that they do not understand copyright. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Most of the files nominated for deletion were not deleted, but kept. And Frypie has no edits, living or dead, during last month. And the user is not even formally warned. I do not want to give even formal warning. If Frypie continues copyright violations, then block is possible. Taivo (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I took a look myself, and it seems like most of the time the issue has been one of not choosing appropriate licensing when uploading, and so a bot is sending most of those notifications. The actual copyright violations seem fairly limited and they've been notified that it's not something they should keep doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Rgalo10

Talk page of globally banned user Rgalo10, target of their socks. --jdx Re: 18:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I semi-protected it indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:UD logo-01.svg

Persistent caption vandalism by multiple IPs, requesting semi-protection. Yeeno (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I semi-protected the file for a year and cleaned its history. Taivo (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

GC Saab (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

As I wrote at Commons:Help desk#Deletion of all of my files:

This user has a long list of copyright warnings on their talk page, including {{End of copyvios}}. They did post a request for help there, but perhaps no one saw it because they did not ping anyone. I also note that they uploaded many now-deleted files after {{End of copyvios}}, so according to that warning, they should now be blocked. Pinging @Yann as the admin who left {{End of copyvios}}.

I checked a sample of recent uploads, and they were indeed deleted as copyvios. Brianjd (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I do not doubt in user's good faith, but per Commons:Competence is required I blocked Saab for a month. Taivo (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Pavel Karous

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked Pavel for a month due to long-time copyright infringement. Also I closed 3 deletion requests. Taivo (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Scienceelectric

User: Hardikakbari864 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Scienceelectric (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Reason for reporting: Promotion-only accounts trying to do self-promotion. Have been warned about the project's scope before but they seem to have created a new account and continued. Clearly not here to support our educational goal.BRP ever 06:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. I blocked the master for a week and sockpuppet indefinitely. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Block for Lalalandpk

Spam-only account. See talk page. Thanks-BRP ever 23:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Already indefinitely blocked, all contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

2402:800:6000::/38

SCP-2000 17:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. This time for a month. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

VishuN

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Albedo

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Screen of Xvideos login page.PNG

Please semi-protect File:Screen of Xvideos login page.PNG - two prior protections and a lot of unconstructive edits from IPs or new editors since. Bridget (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Gay Pride London 1991.jpg

This file page is fully-protected due to a series of deletion requests made to harass the original uploader nearly nine years ago; it is extremely unlikely that the harasser is still hanging around waiting for this page to be unprotected. I request that protection be removed from this page due to it no longer needing to be protected. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. I proudly count myself as one of Fae's detractors, we really do not care for one another, but it is fair to say they have been the subject of persistent harassment on a very long-term basis. That being said I think it would make sense to at least downgrade it to semi-protection so that good-faith users may edit as usual. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose I can't see any reason why this page needs to be editable. Any edit requests could be put on the talk page. The copyright issue seems to be settled and I see no reason to provide any opportunities to morons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think good-faith confirmed users are morons. The bad-faith deletion noms were from unregistered users. Full protection was therefore not warranted to begin with. Commons is also clearly understaffed in the admin department, many requests, deletion nominations, etc, sit for months without being actioned. I'd also note that the protecting admin was later blocked for abuse of admin tools, and eventually blocked, globally locked, and banned by the foundation, so I don't think we should just blindly allow a decision they made nine years ago to stand forever because of "morons". Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"Commons is also clearly understaffed in the admin department". O, the irony! Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that semi-protection should be at least tried, if one wants to add categories they can. Bidgee (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking at COM:UPLOAD-P, it says "[edit=sysop] is not needed (and not useful since it, for example, does not allow category changes)" so this action was against policy to begin with. I'm hoping an admin will opine here before this slides off the page, it seems pretty straightforward. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

2.6.62.3

2.6.62.3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Vandal deleting stuff. Warned. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me Google translate is wrong about exactly what you said when warning them.[27] I know we aren't exactly friends but even I would be surprised if the translation I'm getting is correct. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've run it through three different machine translators and they all returned some version of "stop now or I will come over there and rip your head off." Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Most machine language translators are notoriously unreliable, and I gave up French after O level in 1968. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a total non-answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"Stop now or I will come there and tear your head off" .... Ummmm okay, Is that really necessary Rod ?. I know the IP's been tasting everyone's patience lately but is that comment really necessary ? –Davey2010Talk 21:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
No. In fact, as Rodhullandemu's block shows, that comment is utterly unacceptable. Ahmadtalk 22:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Ahmad Agreed entirely. –Davey2010Talk 01:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Spammers

--ManFromNord (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Achim55 and The Squirrel Conspiracy: Not all accounts have been blocked yet. --jdx Re: 19:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done for all accounts except for Kaaddcz*90. The first six were blocked as socks and their uploads deleted as copyvios.
 Not done for Kaaddcz*90. It doesn't look like they're related to the other accounts, and the files are already tagged for deletion.
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
They are. Indeffed, known pattern. Uploaded images grabbed from the web and spam URL added. I just updated our SBL :) --Achim55 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: They are obviously related, eg.: Special:Diff/610353514, Special:Diff/610347061, Special:Diff/610347005. --jdx Re: 19:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done I tagged them all with Kaczydziub as master, because this account edited first last year. All uploads of all them are deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

B.Ảnh1234

Adding incorrect licensereview to own upload. I highly suspect this user to be Lý Ngọc Đạt's sock. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Name me 07:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Diff? Yann (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: 609621413. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Name me 09:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That file is extracted from another which has a license review, so it is OK. Yann (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Mory98

SCP-2000 10:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

User:2a01:c23:951e:ab00:153f:592e:8690:7949 and User:PolishBoyInUK

  • Reason: User both say they vandalize. I reverted two renames and now I got a bunch of talk in German and Polish on my talk page. I don't know who the vandal really is, or are they both? Maybe an administrator can take a look? At this time (0:32 pm CET) my sight is not so good as during the day and I cannot concentrate on this. Thanks! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Both are now blocked. Taivo (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Richardkiwi: I think you meant "am", rather than "pm".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
AM, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Gloriaziggy

This user seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Ohibbaabbbb already blocked. The files posted by this user have the same attributes with the ones posted by blocked accounts. (See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_95#User:Zoouenozoo) These files also lacks of source and license information obviously. From my point of view, this user is created to evade of blocking. --Netora (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, similar user name to User:Ziggygloria, which is blocked as sockpuppet of User:Ohibbaabbbb. --Netora (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Homaaaa

Seems like the user had been uploading files with copyvio since 2017... It'd be good to block indefinetely to avoid that.--Nanahuatl (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Hi . I have never uploaded file with copyvio . I think you do not know any things about copy right in Iran. I voluntarily work for IRNA. I have permission to upload the fotos that I have send for IRNA.

IRNA have a policy toward copy right of his own special fotos it will mark it as IRNA. other fotos mostly are work of no copy right . many of my works and fotos are published in IRNA.i have given as free work.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homaaaa (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any files taken from IRNA, at least no source is given. All of them have low resolution with no EXIF data, and are marked as "own work". Even if they're own work of the uploader -which should be proven through OTRS anyway, I don't see anything on the IRNA website indicates anything about copyrights.--Nanahuatl (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Good. you confess that: I don't see anything on the IRNA website indicates anything about copyrights" . ok then ask an expert from IRNA. why you had judged without Knowledge??? asking for deletions of fotos . I am very surprised of your judgment . ok I do not have information how I should provide information about my own work and what is OTRS. you should ask me to provide more information. and prove that it is my own work. Homaaaa (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ok I will upload fotos with original resolution.

@Homaaaa: Copyright is automatic, so everything gets a copyright even if there is no mention at the source. Old 2D artworks are probably OK, but you need to give the source, the date, the author ({{unknown author}} if it is not known), and a proper license ({{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} for old works). If IRNA can give a permission, then it's good. Could you please follow the procedure at COM:VRT. It works also in Persian language (Commons:Volunteer Response Team/fa). Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Homaaaa. Yann (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • thank you I will read the above guideline and provide necessary information about my exclusive copyright of the above picture or work of my own friends. be sure none of my uploads have any problem of copy write .

I need time to read and answer all .Homaaaa (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Piggytwokids

Continuing to upload copyvios after final warning. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Disansee

Uploads copyrighted files after final warning. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Name me 17:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:حسین فریدونی نیا

Continuing to upload copyvios. e.g. He has uploaded this logo over and over and also all other images uploaded by himself are dubious to be owen work. Rohalamin (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. The user was not formally warned, so I warned him/her. A lot of uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert123bj

Long term spammer who appears now and then, pls indef, I'm lacking my PC right now. --Achim55-aux (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks. Ahmadtalk 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Levungocthaicuc

Known crosswiki spammer spreading hoaxes about himself. See also it.wiki talk page. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Name me 04:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Business492

LTA Jordanene7. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh Name me 05:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Blocked, tagged, mass deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

118.223.157.58 and 128.134.179.180

Recently, Nintendo 64, Korean Wikipedia, and similar documents in English Wikipedia have damaged documents a lot.

There are many edits that delete the entire document and there are many documents that continue to damage the document.

I ask for an indefinite blocking. Takuyakoz (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Those IP addresses have not edited Commons. AntiCompositeNumber talk 03:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Tulkas Astaldo

Target of low frequency, but persistent vandalism. --jdx Re: 11:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. Page protected by Jon Kolbert. --Túrelio (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Mckennalee0719

Received a 1-week block for uploading multiple copyvios in early November. 10 days of silence afterwards but re-starts to upload copyvios in December. see File:VioletMcGraw.jpg --Denniss (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month. Final warning Gbawden (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo protection

Hallo. Please fully-protect File:Wikifunctions-logo.svg and File:Wikifunctions-logo-en.svg as the official logo files for the upcoming Wikifunctions wiki. (More info at m:Abstract Wikipedia). Thank you. --Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I think one of those two still needs protection added, File:Wikifunctions-logo.svg. Thanks again! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I now protected this one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu appears to have posted a death threat

RESOLVED:

Rodhullandemu was reblocked by Yann for six months--A1Cafel (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See the section directly above this one (now at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 31#2.6.62.3). Arrête maintenant ou je viendrai par là et t'arracherai la tête.

  • Arrête -stop or stopped
  • maintenant -now
  • ou je-or I
  • viendrai -will come
  • par là et -over there and

Now we're already in trouble here, no matter what comes next. No legitimate warning on a website begins with "Stop now or I will come over there and" without ending in some sort of threat. So, even if I'm completely wrong about how the sentence ends, this is still not acceptable. Let's see how it plays out:

  • t'arracherai -will "tear you away"
  • la tête -the head

I ran the translation in reverse, from English to French, and it generated exactly the sentence Rod posted. Machine translation is an imperfect tool, to be sure, but it's usually pretty good doing French to English, and I'm sorry to report it does appear that Rod threatened to find the IP user and remove their head. This is obviously completely unacceptable and his above evasive answer implies to me that he was perfectly aware of what he was saying and chose to do it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It stopped him vandalising. Result. You seriously think I'm going to go to France at this time of night? Oh do grow up. Case closed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"I admit I made a threat of physical violence, but I didn't really mean it and the ends justify the means so everyone should just ignore it" Um... no. IPs are periodically re-assigned. It could already have happened, resulting in some innocent new user being welcomed with a death threat. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Almost like directing this kind of threat to really anyone was acceptable. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: My oh my, I am deeply touched by the fate of this innocent IP… --jdx Re: 05:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
IP addresses can be not only re-assigned, but also shared between multiple simultaneous users. Also, other users who read the comment leading to the block will not necessarily consider this comment in the context of vandalism; these other users may judge the entire project based on this comment. Finally, death threats are a serious crime in many (all?) jurisdictions. The comments here and below by jdx are almost as disturbing as those of the blocked user. Brianjd (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it is somewhat disturbing that there are users who think this behavior is defensible. Death threats are never ok. It doesn't matter who they are directed at. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I bet that death threats are welcome and preferred in case of necessary self-defence. Preferred to the actual use of a weapon. --jdx Re: 08:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Try not to sprain yourself reaching that far for a defense for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment I deleted that talk page. @Rodhullandemu: Really not nice and unnecessary. Don't do that again. Yann (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Really not nice and unnecessary is a fucking understatement. Good to see ACN actually doing something constructive about it ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of Rodhullandemu's previous behavior. But reading last year desysop discussion, I see that it's not one-time bad temper issue. So I support the block. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Blocked indef, this sort of behavior is (still) unacceptable --AntiCompositeNumber talk 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both for your action on this. The appeal they have posted is, frankly, a joke that shows an appalling lack of self-awareness as to the potential harm of such behavior, but I guess we already knew that since they posted here on this board that they had warned the IP,apparently thinking there was nothing wrong with making such a threat if they didn't intend to actually do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Seriously, a block for a seasoned, productive user for writing a few inappropriate words to a fucking vandal? BTW, IMO the main Rodhullandemu’s mistake are not the words, but the fact that he tried to warn an obvious vandal. @Rodhullandemu: In cases like this it is not worth to warn or edit war, just report the vandal immediately. Fortunately, our policy does not require obvious vandals to be warned. --jdx Re: 05:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify, nobody has suggested that Rod was wrong about the vandal. I should think it clear form the above discussion that the issue is threatening to hunt them down and kill them, and refusing to acknowledge that that is a problem when the inappropriateness of that was pointed out. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Wow. --Rschen7754 06:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
So because Rod's a "seasoned, productive user" you think that grants them the right to make death threats do you?. Sound logic Jdx!. I'm sure if someone made a death threat against yourself or your family you wouldn't be so defensive here. –Davey2010Talk 12:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. But to a vandal? Well, personally I wouldn't do it, but I do not consider it as a serious offence. Death threat on the Internet? I would laught at it and not treat it seriously. Actually I got such threat once or twice from LTAs (probably as other admins here) and didn't even think about making a drama. --jdx Re: 13:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Death threats (and, in general, threats of physical harm) are always inappropriate and off-limits. They are inappropriate when used against an established user, and the same applies when used against a vandal or, for that matter, an LTA. This is so serious that the WMF has created a special team, available 24/7, for such threats (see w:en:WP:EMERGENCY and m:HARM), and advises everyone to "[t]reat all claims [of physical harm] seriously" - so the argument that Rodhullandemu wasn't being serious doesn't justify what they said at all.
Now, I don't think Rodhullandemu's indefinite block should necessarily be infinite. They have a lot of experience, and their contributions to Commons are priceless. But, as others have said, it seems that Rodhullandemu still thinks that message was okay simply because they didn't intend to actually, well, rip that person's head off, and because the death threat stopped the IP from vandalizing. In other words, it seems that the death threat didn't come from a momentary anger/frustration, but from a belief that this was acceptable behavior, which, in my humble opinion, is troubling. As long as they insist their behavior was acceptable/appropriate, I think the indefinite block should stay in place. Ahmadtalk 16:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, of course vandals aren't people. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, that kind of argument («seasoned, productive user») is good enough to keep “some” of us on the clear, no matter how obnoxious their behaviour. A safe example would be INC, who was eventually blocked after being given a few years of 2nd and 3rd chances upon much, much worse behaviour. On the other hand, AJ got exactly one chance to make a misunderstandable joke and bam!, he was gone (not that I think his immediate reaction after blocking was any good). So, pretty much double standards. For what’s worth, I find Rodhullandemu’s threat, even as the obvious joke it is, very unpleasant and unwelcome — it helps creating / mantaining an oppressive environment of constant unsafety.
You know what else does that too? Those double standards: Knowing that one can be disappeared at the first slip of the tongue — either intentional like in Rodhullandemu’s case here now, or as a transparently misunderstood joke as in AJ’s case. And all the while people like INC are kept along, allowed their almost uncceptable behaviour, both riling others into said slipping, and creating / mantaining an enviroment where the newcomer might misundertand that aggressive, obnoxious behaviour is tolerated. Well, it is, but for some some more than for others. If Rodhullandemu’s block were for, say, a week, I’d be nodding along and saying that this is how things needs to be done — but an indefinite block is really bad.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
A 1-week block would not have been appropriate. To quote from COM:BP: As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, 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. Death threats are about as severe as it gets, and Rodhullandemu's past behavior (including what was outlined last year) makes it clear this is not a one-off slip of the tongue. I don't think Rodhullandemu needs any time to "familiarize themselves with the relevant policies", the desysop should have been warning enough that threats of any kind are not acceptable. Because of Rodhullandemu's history of incivility and making (usually vague) threats, the only block length I thought likely cause them to adjust their behavior is indefinite. Indefinite does not mean infinite, of course, if they can show their behavior has actually changed, they can be unblocked. AntiCompositeNumber talk 17:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Does Rodhullandemu have a record of similar offences? (I don't remember any, but I don't track other people except vandals.) If not, shouldn't he be warned first, as per COM:BP? Because for sure he isn't an "obvious vandal" what would justify instant block. --jdx Re: 14:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jdx: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rodhullandemu (de-adminship) should have been enough of a civility warning.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not English native, and I don't speak French, so no assessment from my part what the expression "tear away your head" could be used for in these languages. What I know however is that in German there is an expression "jemandem den Kopf abreißen" which literally means the same, yet it is only being used metaphorically, meaning somewhat "to punish", "to put in trouble". (Example: "Wenn du eine halbe Flasche Bier getrunken hast und danach Auto fährst, wird dir niemand den Kopf abreißen, es sei denn du baust einen Unfall" -- "If you have drunk half a bottle beer and drive car after that, no one will tear away your head [the police will not punish you] for that, unless you cause an accident".) I don't know if there is a similar catch phrase in French, but I would be very much surprised if Rodhullandemu meant it literally (and how would "tear away someone's head" ever be possible?), though yes of course, the comment was highly stupid and unnecessary anyhow. If I had to decide what to do, I would suggest 1 month block for incivility (or intimidation/harassment). I'm not sure though what policy on Commons requires an immediate indef block for a good-faith regular with previously clean block log for a comment addressed at an anonymous vandal that in theory may be considered a death threat, if you take everything being said here strictly literal. Regards --A.Savin 13:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, there were some issues – that's why he lost his admin bit. But I don't remember anything what would justify an instant block. --jdx Re: 14:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Are we seriously questioning an indefinite block for someone who (a) made a clear death threat against another user, and then defended said threat with "well it stopped the vandalism", and (b) has a history of incivility across multiple projects (i.e. this didn't appear to be a one-time lapse in judgment). These points, to me, sum to an impression of someone who is incompatible with a collaborative project where everyone deserves to be treated with respect. Thank you AntiCompositeNumber for doing the right thing. All the productive contributions in the world cannot excuse behaviour such as this. firefly ( t · c ) 16:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am seriously questioning the block. He has history of incivility, but hey, we are not here to love each other. I am not even sure if one can be blocked due to incivility (yeah, I know cases such as eg. Slowking4’s, who basically was blocked because of incivility; yeah, he was annoying, but IMO he did not deserve a block – because we are not here to love each other). Regarding death threats – AFAIK it was Rodhullandemu’s first time so he should have been only warned. Especially that he threatened a vandal, i.e. nobody. --jdx Re: 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
"The enemy is not a real person" said no one ever who was in the right. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
When I was young I heard people say to naughty children "Ich reiß dir die Ohren ab!" (literally "I'll rip your ears off!") and absolutely nobody took that as a threat of violence. IMO some people here are suffering from some kind of fogged perception of reality. Therefore I think ACN will be wise and change the block to a temporary one. --Achim55 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
And it's not unusual here in the States for kids to say things like "I'm going to kill you." Adult friends might say something much worse than that after a few beers. That's not the same thing as pointing such threats at total strangers on the internet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That stranger is a vandal so screw them. Because you live in the States then you should very well know that in the States (and some other countries) when someone enters your propery without permission and starts destroying your stuff you can not only threat them but you can actually kill them pretty much without consequences. --jdx Re: 23:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I understood it, Achim55's comment was not about children using a phrase. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4 I don't think age is relevant. The point is that there is a difference between poking fun at people you know in real life and saying things that sound like threats to strangers online. Brianjd (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Achim55 Probably because the "ear ripper" was a relative or known in some way to that child. Rod and the IP don't know each other. And there's a stark difference between ears and head!. It's not our perception of reality that's the problem here - It's Rod and his incivility or more specifically his threats of perceived violence that's the issue. –Davey2010Talk 19:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you think the vandalising IP felt really theatened? I do not. --Achim55 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That's utterly absurd - whether they felt threatened or not is completely irrelevant. Should we change WP:NLT to say "we'll only block if the other party is offended by your legal threat against them"? ... No ofcourse not. –Davey2010Talk 19:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
As A.Savin pointed out correctly that in theory may be considered a death threat, if you take everything being said here strictly literal we can reduce the whole discussion to the question 'take such things literal or not?' and resulting 'was that a real death threat or not?'--Achim55 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
imho "taking it literal" is besides the point - The comment was still made, a perceived threat of violence was still made. –Davey2010Talk 19:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
A real threat requires two things: intention and perception. So we have here a knife without a blade that lacks the handle. --Achim55 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The IP is a vandal so screw them and their feelings. Also let me remind you that we are on Commons an there is no WP:NLT. There is even no real COM:NLT. BTW, WP:NLT is one of Wikipedia’s absurdities because legal threats are by definition legal. I have never heard about a country where "I will sue you" is punishable. As opposed to "I will kill you". --jdx Re: 23:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't read all the comments but I mostly agree with A.Savin and Achim55, this comment was maybe or maybe not a good thing to do, but in no way this is a true threat, simply because this is an IP. IMO Rodhullandemu should be unblocked and simply warned. At this point Rodhullandemu have not already said a similar thing before and I think there is a serious chance that he will not do that again, therefore a block is not really necessary to prevent him to do it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    I just want to make sure I understand the logic being presented here. If a user says they are going to hunt another user down and kill them, that's ok so long as they (as far as we know) don't actually intend to do it? That's where the bar is, users can just threaten anyone with being stalked and murdered, they just can't actually do it? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is in no way what I wrote, I think you should temper a bit your enthusiasm for answering tit for tat. This was, in the form, clearly an inappropriate, uncivil and unwanted comment here, but, in the content this is clearly not a true threat. No user has been threatened here, and that's why he thought wrongly to be allowed to do it. The comment was wrong, yes, but this whole thing should now be enough to make him understand that he shouldn't have. Block is not needed here excepted for a punition, and by the way "punition" is neither not allowed by out policies. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Rod's various replies do not show one single iota of a suggestion that what he did was wrong in any way, so while I agree that he should understand by now, he has instead dug in his heels in defense of his actions. He's not going to change, he's been threatening and bullying other users for a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I haven't really interacted with him or know his past so I don't know for potential past actions, sorry. And yes Rodhullandemu should say that he does not consider his actions to be appropriate and that he does not intend to start over. In defense of the first unblock request, it's hard to apologize first when you think that a block is inappropriate in the first place, besides, it is myself what I think regarding a block for this unique action... I hope the community hill unblock him against with no obligation to apologize but with giving him a clear warning, this is my first choice. Otherwise I hope Rodhullandemu can get over his frustration for the block and make things right. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Furthermore regarding potential past actions, an instant block without prior discussion is highly inappropriate. It is clear, for me, that the user is not going to do that again not today nor tomorrow, so a block is here not preventive. And If we have to judge his potential past behavior with this block, it is a bit like if we are giving the verdict before the trial. This is very unfair. And when we know that the cause of all this is an IP only acting like a vandal... Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, "IPs aren't real editors, so threats against them don't matter". That attitude is unacceptable from anyone, much less an administrator. Threats are threats, regardless of whether or not they're made at a registered user. Also friendly reminder that it's easier to find the (general) location of an IP editor than a registered user, so I would consider a threat against one more plausible than a threat against a registered user. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Harassement is a very serious topic within the Wikimedia projects, and to put at the same level an impulsive, though inappropriate, comment made to an IP acting only like a vandal compared to the registered users who really suffer from harassment and sometimes in silence, is a kind of insult to those who are precisely the real victims of harassement. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    No. Harassment is harassment, no matter whether it was impulsive or the victim "deserved" it, and turning a blind eye to an established user doing it is an insult to those who suffer harassment. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Nobody is forced to edit "anonymously". Regarding "real editors", well, for sure the reality is that they are major source of vandalism. AFAIR the numbers can be found on Meta. --jdx Re: 00:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    So if this were a registered editor vandalizing, the threat wouldn't have been acceptable, but since it was an IP editor it's okay? Is that the point of your comment? GeneralNotability (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, probably it would be a bit less acceptable. Because registered user has greater chance to see the threat. Although vandal is vandal, no mattter registered or not. Screw them. Anyway, IP editing is evil and I hope that finally critical mass will be reached and major WMF’s projects fix this huge design flaw and turn off IP editing. --jdx Re: 21:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    So since nobody is forced to edit in the first place, any editor should expect to receive unpunished (for lack of a better word, even though blocks are preventative) death threats? Your logic extends exactly to that. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    For once in my life I'm actually fucking speechless with some of the comments here. Just wow. –Davey2010Talk 19:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    It is rather unsettling to see administrators defending a death threat, and others suggesting that anyone who disrupts the project deserves what they get and should be considered less than human. One wonders if there isn't some other motivation behind these increasingly desperate attempts to excuse inexcusable behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    "Defending a death threat" is not about me I hope. And (I think) I know well what a real death threat (here on Commons) is: voilà (admin-only link). --A.Savin 00:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    FWIW another one, this time visible for all (by now; no idea why didn't they on Meta revdelete it): [28]. --A.Savin 01:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    Now done. Thanks for objecting to the block of a user who has issued a death threat by providing examples of death threats properly actioned with blocks and locks. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    Whether Rh&E is a "user who has issued a death threat" is not obvious at all, and as you can see I'm by far not the only one who is opposing this point; so it's really not helpful to play prosecutor and judge in one person, 1234qwer1234qwer4. Regards --A.Savin 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    I bet that he was globally locked not for a death threat but because this is a sock puppet of an LTA, globally banned one BTW. Although a death threat from this particular LTA is kinda surprising to me. --jdx Re: 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    My point still stands, and since this was a vandalism-only account, it could as well have been locked for xwiki abuse. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Davey2010 Rarely do I agree with impulsive comments like this, but in this case, I couldn't have said it better myself. Brianjd (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you expressing my opinions in a way that wouldn't involve me breaking the NPA page (in all fairness though if a death threat is fine I doubt anything I can say is block worthy at this point). — Berrely • T∕C 21:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • After a second unblock request, I considered that request sufficiant and I unblocked Rodhullandemu. A potential further block should be done only after a discussion here, and after a clear consensus in favor of the block, and including a clear consensus from a part of the administrator team. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    May I just remind you you !voted support on his first unblock (have been indefinitely blocked diff) and you also commented above effectively saying you disagreed with the block... so therefore you should've quite clearly left it to a neutral party!. Just when Commons cannot get any worse. "Bad lapse of judgement" is a fucking understatement Christian. –Davey2010Talk 19:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer: There was at least a majority in favor of a block. I am very disappointed that you decided to unblock wihtout any further discussion. Yann (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Davey Regarding the procedural question I agree with you -- by the way I never stated that I'm against any sanction whatsoever, the RH&E's "death threat" certainly was an uncivil and inappropriate comment, and it is at least controversial if the block should be reduced to the duration already served or to, say, 2 weeks or 1 month. We should try to find a good compromise between treating an otherwise productive user as fair as any other (no matter the not always fair comments by some "rare guests" from enwiki), and preventing possible incidents like this in future. Regards --A.Savin 20:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    We need to ensure we are not giving "productive users" a free pass to behave in a completely unacceptable manner. The unblock by Christian Ferrer (which itself is extremely problematic) very much feeds into a narrative that as long as you upload, edit and curate the project significantly, you can go around behaving however you want. Nick (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    What Nick said^, As long as you upload quality images or as someone put it "a seasoned and constructive editor" you're free to use death threats against people/IPs - I (like everyone else here) don't agree with that and if that's how we're gonna roll then I want no part of this project.
    Yes indefinite doesn't mean forever but as I've very openly stated on his talkpage there's been no remorse, no guilt, no sincereness nothing .... it's just been a pity party and lame excuses. There's no excuses to make death threats and certainly none to unblock the threater. –Davey2010Talk 20:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Don't you think that the block was also problematic? --jdx Re: 22:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow... threats of violence are all OK as long as it's "only" against IPs... FFS... just when I thought Commons couldn't sink any lower into the mire, an involved admin steps in and unblocks against consensus. Brilliant! 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE 20:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    What consensus? Do you have in mind "rare guests" from enwiki who are not regulars here? And likely bring here some old issues from there? --jdx Re: 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The block is not necessary anymore as the user will not do it again, as per our unblock policy. But well, if our community, against our policies, is ready to give a punition block, @community: don't count with me to support a punishment block for this precise case. I therfore oppose a re-block, and if reinstalled, indeed the block have to be lifter and reasonable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
+++ Hunger +++
And the vultures flew far away in this great blue sky
Was in their eyes and in their hearts something dusky?
Nothing else on the ground was waiting anymore
The animal, not yet dead, will live a bit more.
Christian Ferrer, 2021-11-29
Sorry for this wit if you find it inappropriate, but I'm quite proud of myself having learned English here among you. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I have seen nothing from Rodhullandemu that significantly accounts for their behavior. They claim that policy is not sufficiently clear in prohibiting the making of threats. That does not make threatening other people acceptable. They claim that the person they threatened should not have interpreted it as a true threat. That does not make threatening other people acceptable. The section of the blocking policy you cite asks for acknowledgement that the block was appropriate (which is not in evidence) and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated (which is open to debate). It also asks that you consult with me first, which was not done (I hadn't seen the second unblock request until you unblocked). Your unblock sends the message that making threats is acceptable, and I am very disappointed in the message you have sent as a representative of this community. AntiCompositeNumber talk 20:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I was going to reply here, but this says everything I could have said and more. Awful unblock which sends a very poor message - seemingly that you can do what you want as long as you’re a productive contributor. That does not foster a healthy collaborative environment. firefly ( t · c ) 21:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (ec) @Christian Ferrer: I don't see any apology, or understanding by Rodhullandemu that his words are not acceptable whoever is the recipient, and that these words can cause exteme stress to people who receive them, even if he didn't mean them. I only see arguments that there are OK because the recipient is a vandal, etc. Yann (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Yann: you may don't see apology me neither. In our policy I don't see "apology" however I read "(...) acknowledgement ... credible promise ... will not be repeated". In its unblock request he said words by words that he will don't do that again. You don't trust him? me yes. I also see that he understood that his behavior led him there, that is a kind of acknowledgement, indeed not for the block itself (to be opposed to a block, or to think that a block is unfair, his own block or that of another, is a right for him, you and me I think. Would you prefer a lie?), but there is indeed an acknowledgement for the consequences of his behavior. So for me the role of the block is now fulfilled. You want to condition here an indef block against apologies: this is clearly what I call punishment and blackmail, and that is against my understanding of our policies. There is therefore no chances that I undo what I have done. Make your choice, find a "consensus" of courageous administrators, reinstall the block and and demand with force your "apologies", or do like me and take a risk by believing that Rodhullandemu will not reapet that behavior again (isn't that what we call AGF?). Nothing specific to add here for me. And I have to go to bed. Good luck. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer I read through the ridiculously long unblock request, but could not find where the blocked user said they will not do this again. Instead, I found a bizarre defence of their actions that ignores important issues raised here. Can you quote the part where they said they would not do this again? Brianjd (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 Question There seems to be strong support for reimposing the block, including three "reblock" comments in a row from admins. I don't know whether a reblock is appropriate, but I certainly agree that lifting the block was out of process (no consultation with blocking admin, and the blocked user did not demonstrate understanding or an intention to change their behaviour). At what point does someone actually do something? Brianjd (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
So much support, in fact, that while I was writing my comment, someone moved the relevant comments into their own section. Brianjd (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Opinions about a possible reblock

  • I usually just stick to occasionally uploading photos or changing categories, but this is so egregious I feel the need to weigh in. This unblock was hilariously bad, and I implore Christian Ferrer to revert his actions, barring any consensus here to overturn the block. We should not tolerate death threats from anyone, no matter the target. I don't care if Icewhiz himself shows up, it's not OK to make death threats to other editors. Absolutely shameful that several editors think "they were a vandal, so it's ok". They would have us stoop to the level of vandals. Rodhullandemu should be blocked until if and when he admits his behavior was inappropriate, and promises not to do it again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Obviously bad unblock, by an admin who came late to the discussion and made a bunch of half-baked remarks that demonstrated they hadn't taken the time to be in full possession of the facts before weighing in. This is the sort of thing people mean when they say the commons community is "broken". Rod is unrepentant about what he's done, and this will only encourage more such behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Y'know, I'm getting the impression here that nobody has actually read Christan Ferrer's unblock rationale. But then, I'm not surprised if that is the case. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
support reblock per the chilling effect. Previous behavior accounted for, not an erroneous block, IPs are humans too, vandals are also humans too, and really this is just sad bureaucracy going against what NPA says. If the community says to block then three admins do not unilaterally decide that the opinions don't matter. There is a strong consensus here that the block was good as is already. Horrid unblock. Sennecaster (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Bad unblok you say? And where our policy justifies instant block for such behaviour? --jdx Re: 22:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Reblock Rodhullandemu has not shown that they understand why making death threats to other people, even vandals, is totally unacceptable. Given that they have been blocked on Wikipedia for a decade for the same disruptive behaviour, and desysopped from Commons last year for the same reasons, they clearly won't change their ways and deserve the boot, they have been given enough chances at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Reblock - As stated many of times now - No remorse, No guilt, No statement-retraction, No apologies = Nothing has been done nor shown. Allowing this block to stand sets the precedent that death threats are okay providing their made by "seasoned, constructive editors". Death threats aren't ever acceptable period. –Davey2010Talk 22:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    I find it ironic that the UCOC ratification round table was today, which has the goal of creating a welcoming environment for all and preventing situations exactly like this one. Sennecaster (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Regardless the administrative actions, I think most of the comments submitted here by numerous users from English WP are by no means helpful to resolve the situation, add more drama, are biased against RH&E, and make all the conversation TLDR for Commoners, who actually should, if possible, read into it carefully and find a consensus at some point. --A.Savin 22:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    This may be a surprise to you, but some of us "English WP" editors are also active on commons. I have a number of uploads here, some of which I added just a few days ago. That I am more active on enWiki than I am on Commons does not mean that my views on this matter are irrelevant. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not the homewiki of a user makes his/her comments (un)helpful, but that comments' maturity and informational substance. For me, comments that consistently sound like "The comment by RH&E was a death threat, RH&E should be indef banned, period" aren't helpful. As this claim isn't any informative for me (because: I know this point already, as well as the fact that you are persistently ignoring any statements which suggest that it, while indeed being a stupid and inappropriate PA, hardly can be considered a seriously meant DT that would then justify an instant indefblock w/o prior discussion), the comments aren't helpful, simple as is. This may be a surprise to you, but I know a few very friendly and mellow EN-wikipedians too whose opinion I would respect anytime; though in general of course enwiki is quite a toxic place and honestly I'm glad that Commons ≠ WP. --A.Savin 01:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    A.Savin, I agree that repeating of ideas does cause some degree of clutter, but it is an issue for all concerned Wikimedians, regardless of how often they edit Wikimedia Commons, when the safeness of their contributing environemnt is threatened by administrators who ignore the most basic standards for civility and consensus-making. Vermont (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Reblock - The unblock was out of process and not acceptable conduct. Christopher was involved in this discussion with a clear opinion in favor of Rodhullandemu prior to their unblock. In their unblock acceptance statement, they claimed that their action was uncontroversial and opposed by only one admin, ignoring the community discussion that was taking place here and lying about the state of administrators' opinions. As for the reasoning of the block, which Christopher argues was not necessary in the first place: death threats are not acceptable on Wikimedia projects. It astounds me that this is a point of contention. It does not matter whether the threat could be reasonably carried out, it does not matter who was threatened, and it does not matter how good the threatening person's other contributions are. Christopher, I recommend that you take a read over COM:NPA and the UCoC, and if you disagree with the listed principles of civility and respect, please consider relinquishing your administrator hat. You have the bit to apply community consensus, not enforce your own. Regards, Vermont (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Wrong, sorry. Admins only apply consensus when it's not a matter for their own discretion. For example, if an Admin dealing with a DR for a clear copyright violation in which everyone votes "Keep" deletes it as a copvio, that's not "applying community consensus", but it is applying COM:PRP and protecting Commons and the WMF from legal action. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
COM:NPA? You mean an essay under condtruction? Which, BTW, seems to be a copy of WP:NPA. Anyway, where any of these documents (in conjunction with COM:BP or WP:BP respectively) guarantees an instant block due to a physical threat? --jdx Re: 00:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Good point: NPA isn't a policy here. However, it is in the UCoC, and Terms of use. So...the ToU guarantees action due to a physical threat of violence. This generally takes the form of an indefinite block or lock. Vermont (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
No, ToU does not guarantee any action. All I can see is We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms. And the exercise is reserved for "we", i.e. Foundation’s staff, not for ordinary admins. BTW, as fas as I understand, UCoC is not the law yet. --jdx Re: 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
See Commons talk:No personal attacks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
+1 --Achim55-aux (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • An indefinite block in general does not mean there is no "chance to come back", but in this case there might have been enough chances given. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Reblock Having seen several other death threats in my wiki-live, the discussion often follows the lines such as “words do not hurt,” “it was a joke”, “I did not mean this seriously”, while many users (like myself) think a death threat does hurt and it does do harm. An experienced user should be aware of these discussions and the sensitivity. From the contribution of Rodhullandemu after the first block, I do not see the intention to avoid this in future. Here a lot of words devoted to procedures, intention and perception, and here several remarks what other people should do or avoid. But no sign or intention to change their own behaviour. In addition, the death threat was excessive to what the IP was doing, their contributions show vandalism(?), in any case deletions of parts of MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js talk pages. I would first wonder why? That would have been a first question, not a death threat, like this, only to be seen by admins. Ellywa (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Reblock - It seems to me Rodhullandemu still insists their behavior in sending a death threat was acceptable, because they didn't intend to go kill the person, and because it stopped the IP. As blocks are supposed to be preventive and not punitive, I support an indefinite (but not infinite) block which can only be lifted when Rodhullandemu demonstrates a clear understanding of why their behavior was unacceptable and a clear promise that they will never send any sort of physical threat to anyone. I agree with the argument that an established user should be given a second chance, but, to me, a temporary block only seems like a punitive measure, as Rodhullandemu can just wait the block out and come back with no change of mind. Here, we only want to prevent future physical/death threats of any kind, not punish anyone. Ahmadtalk 11:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Notification for participants Due to the threats of physical harm and other safeguarding concerns (which Rodhullandemu is aware of, as are some of the participants here) I have raised a report with the T&S team. This should not prevent any further discussion of a reblock - this is for information purposes only if anyone else was considering the same. I will add however that on my behalf the unblock significantly raised the level of risk I consider acceptable and prompted the report. Only in death (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought I might comment here, not with a bolded vote, because I'm not active enough at commons, and I don't want to give the impression that there's an enwp invasion. I'd like to make a few points. First and foremost, I do not believe Rodhullandemu's comment that sparked this is a credible death threat, and I think things would be much clearer if people stopped implying that it was. In fact, it was a statement of extreme incivility, with significant threatening and bullying aspects. It may have been provoked by a target who was damaging the project and the user may have had a history of good content, but neither excuse the behaviour. Ironically, the case that sparked off RH&E's ban from en.wp was about his disagreement between him and a user who had a history of good content but would be chronically uncivil when provoked
    My concern here, and the reason I believe that Rodhullandemu should be reblocked, is that he has carried on similar behaviours for many years. Worse, not only has he not acknowledged that there is any issue, he is unrepentant about such behaviour. For example, recently he refused to accept that there are victims of behaviour [29] despite multiple accusations of bullying and harassment at his desysop request [30]. I can give examples where I have been personally affected as I did in the past on this project - however, he's been quite clear that no one should care about that[31]
    Some of the recent behaviours that have been exhibited by Rodhullandemu are very reminiscent of his behaviours a decade ago on en, I can give examples if anyone would like them. These include but are not limited to: suggestions that text was misinterpreted but not giving any other interpretation (i.e. attempting to sow doubt), shutting down conversations to reduce accountability, complaining about their health in the face of criticism (up to and and including threatening self harm) and threatening those who question him. Simply put, Rodhullandemu is willing to manipulate these proceedings with lies, obfuscation, intimidation and harassment and as such I believe he is detrimental to this community. WormTT · (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    I know that RH&E often complains about severe health problems, but is there any reason to doubt his credibility regarding this? --A.Savin 15:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    I do not doubt for a moment that RH&E has health problems, and fully wish him well on those. However, his timing and method of raising these health problems are designed to provoke an emotive response. WormTT · (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I also don't wish to offer a bolded recommendation, at least in part because I am not sufficiently familiar with Commons policy on what to do in such block/unblock situations. I will just say that I think WormTT's description of the problem is accurate. The solution is for those with more Commons experience to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Reblock - without prejudice to a reasonable (=convincing to the community) unblock request that acknowledges the egregious offence committed and the relevant policies (civility and harassment for starters) with the acknowledgement that the indef block can and should be reinstated without warning should any further similar behaviors occur. Also not, for the record, that the unblock was poor—indeed, the unblocking admin acknowledges that they hadn't read this discussion filly before drawing a conclsion—and another admin has themselves made repeated peronal attacks against anonymous editors. All in all, there's plenty of toxicity to go around. Stay Classy. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, the more "rare guests" from enwiki there are, the more toxicity on Commons. This is kinda strange and suspicious how Rodhullandemu attracts people from enwiki, most of whom are clearly not interested in Commons. Especially that he was blocked there a decade ago. BTW, what a classy comment: Special:Diff/607873970. --jdx Re: 16:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, no problem explaining that one to you; the fact that I have to, though, merely brings your eventual fall from grace slightly closer. As I and the involved admin know, and also as you know-but wish to pretend otherwise-I was venting, and for which I then apologised (I note you don't link to that; neither will I), and the admin understood. Unlike some of your 'classy' comments here, such as "screw them", etc... if you think the toxicity of commons stems from anything other than vitriolic incivility (such as we regularly see from RH&E) and those who enable him (such as you), then you're so far out of sync with project expectations, it's like watching Macbeth dubbed into Mandarin Chinese. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please tell me which of our policies would permit a reblock, COM:BP being utterly silent on the issue, when to do so would effectively legitimise wheel-warring? It woud be a brave Admin indeed who would put his bit on the line to do that. Just a heads-up: we don't have IAR here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    So, are you saying that if there's a disgreement between admins, Commons policy gives the second mover absolute authority that can not be challenged by consensus? That would be absurd. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    Interestingly, COM:BP is not silent on the issue. It states that "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block." which implies that lifting a block without consensus is liable to lead to being re-blocked, and firmly putting the blame on the admin who breaches the consensus. WormTT · (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Are we now doing things by implication? If it's not written, we should not be doing it. Simple as that. Fix the policy, don't read things into it hat aren't there. That's anarchy.Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Or alternatively, if something is not explicitly prescribed, then follow consensus? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Or mob rule, whichever you think to be more likely. I've seen pile-ons before, and they're an ugly sight. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, consensus trumps everything, both negating and creating policy. It's at the heart of how every wiki project, in any language, operates. Consensus is what creates policy, and consensus is what sets precedent to override it. Unlucky! Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
So consensus can be used to keep copyvios? That's an interesting idea, but, I think WMF Legal would be on top of that like a ton of bricks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Are you really so totally impervious to the way this is going and to the consensus that is clearly developing among your peers? And no, leave off the straw men - consensus is the way to decide things that are not prescribed by policy (and, indeed, to change policy where appropriate). And of course consensus can not decide on illegal policy, and attempts to do so would correctly be stopped by WMF Legal. Anyway, it will be judged by whoever evaluates the consensus and closes this discusson. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
So clearly "consensus does not trump everything". It's that kind of woolly thinking that has got us here. And, TBH, I would much rather be somewhere else. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, if you read into that "including pages with legal implications" then you most definitely should be somewhere else. But stick around, it might yet happen. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
No, Rodhullandemu, doing so will not be wheel-warring. Since our own blocking policy - an official policy - provides a link to w:en:WP:WW, I will explain according to the enwiki policy: please correct me, according to the policy, if I'm wrong, but wheel-warring is when administrators revert each other's actions without discussion. Without a "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision," reinstating the reverted action is not allowed and is considered wheel-warring. WP:WW clearly says, "Resolve administrative disputes by discussion"; it doesn't say don't resolve them at all. Another quote from the same page: "disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power struggles". We're having a discussion here. If the result of this discussion, the consensus, is reinstating the block, reinstating it will not be wheel-warring; it will be the right course of action. Ahmadtalk 17:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I thought when you wrote "everything", you actually meant "everything" rather than "actually not everything". My mistake. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Look at the way he's screaming at people over at the other conversation: [32]. This is the sort of unhinged behavior this unblock is encouraging. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose potential reblock. Since unblocked the user has not restarted the prohibited behavior, and honestly I don't think he's gonna do it today either, or tomorrow. At top of our blocking policy you can read "(...) blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one." Therefore I wonder what a block would bring good to anyone. I followed our policy "Appealing a block", the user has provided two necessary points while only one would have been sufficiant. 1/he said he won't do it again 2/he provided an explanation of why the block is not appropriate: this was clearly not not a death threat. He could have say "if your continue I'll just break your fingers", "I will crush your bones into dust", "I'll knock your head in", "I will talk your ear off", ect... that was this kind of thing. We could find one hundred of similar sentences, some speaking of different part of the human body, some said in a more or less smart way, some said by children in schoolyards since time immemorial. 99,999% are not death threat and /or are not said in the sense of death threat. And that was said with annoyance and impulsiveness to an IP only acting like a vandal. That was inappropriate indeed, but was obviously not a death threat, so a block for "death threat" is indeed inappropriate. Some said I'm involved, but my god, where do you find in our policy that it is an issue in case for unblockage? otherwise why hundred and hundred of blocks have been removed by the administrator blockers while they are obvioulsy the most involved? Sorry but that logic doesn't take a second and that is not for nothing that the exact opposite is written in our blocking policy "declined by an uninvolved administrator." (emphased by me). My only fault was I did not "consult with the blocking administrator", but 1/ that case was obvious to me and 2/ that was obvious that blocking administrator would have not agreed, am I wrong?. So for me that was too unfair toward Rodhullandemu and I took a decision. Some may say "yes but you should have wait...": ok but for what? just by principle? Sorry but tht is against our policy, go back to the top of my paragraph: "(...) blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one." Reblocking the user at this point would be a stupid punishment, and against our policy. So finaly isn't it an obvious case of unucessary block? obviously I thought so when I performed the unblock. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Christian, you say it "was obvious that blocking administrator would have not agreed", so you knew unblocking would be controversial. In the part about controversial blocks at COM:BP it clearly says "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block." So it appears clear that you acted incorrectly by unblocking unilaterally when you knew it was controversial, and you should have sought consensus first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
You missed the part "except in obvious, uncontroversial cases", for me the case is obvious though it seems that I underestimate the uncontroversial aspect. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And to respond to your claim that a reblock would only be punitive now, I think that shows that you still do not understand (or refuse to consider) the full issue here. Is RH&E going to threaten to tear someone's head off today or tomorrow? No. But the whole point is that it is *not* about that one single threat. The lastest threat was just a part of an aggressive approach of repeatedly threatening people that has been going on for years, and which has led to RH&E being desysoped on two projects (including this one). So what would be the purpose of a reblock now? The proposal is that RH&E should be reblocked until he shows a proper understanding that his chronic aggressive behaviour is inappropriate (and not just an "I shouldn't have done that one specific thing" throwaway in the midst of otherwise trying to justify his action), and a proper commitment to adjust that behaviour. And *that* would be the purpose - to bring an end to a decade and more of egregiously bad behaviour. That you are unwilling to look beyond the latest episode, take in the wider picture, and listen to the feedback you are getting from your colleagues, is disappointing in an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
If performed for "chronic aggressive behaviour" an instant block is of course fully inadequat, and is a trial and a verdict made by a single person. That makes the block(s) more inadequat and my unblock more justified . Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Reblock

I reblocked Rodhullandemu for six months. As this long discussion shows, there is a consensus that unblocking by Christian Ferrer was controversial and out of line with current policies and practices. This block is not a punishment. There is also a consensus that Rodhullandemu didn't acknowledge properly that his words were harassment and attack, even if the recipient is a vandal. He can come back after offering a sincere apology, and showing that he has understood the problem of his behavior. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this decision, because a) either the "tear off your head" comment was a DT which would of course mean that the only sanction in place would be an indef block; or b) this (as I still believe) wasn't a DT but "merely" an incivility -- but then 6 months are still way too much, especially for the first ever PA block in the user's log. And the fact that the overruling unblock was inappropriate shall not affect the block length I think. Regards --A.Savin 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a consensus, seriously? Perhaps among these de facto randoms who have come here from enwiki. Anyway, the strange thing is that a lot of people, including you, do not notice that the original block was controversial and out of line with current policies and practices. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am not aware about other serious Rodhullandemu’s offences. Yes, I have seen quotes/links on the desysop proposal thread and the formal desysop request page, but IMO these are pretty much bullshit (we are not here to be nice and love each other), perhaps good enough for de-adminship, but not for a block. --jdx Re: 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I've been a school teacher. Children are laughing their heads off (excusez le mot) when they see teachers quarreling with each other. Wiki vandals must have fun too, to see us wasting our time like this. Was the remark inappropriate? Yes. Is the punishment block disproportionate? Sure. -- Vysotsky (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vysotsky Did you see any any actual death threats (not like the "rip your ears off" stuff above)? Were the children still laughing after that? Brianjd (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Children can be very cruel. You'd be surprised. Vysotsky (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vysotsky I assumed that those cruel children were not the sort of children you referred to in your first comment. Brianjd (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Just when we thought it was all over...Rodhullandemu has made yet another unblock request. Brianjd (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • To second Vysotsky, one thing is certain the vandal IP has more chance of losing his life by dying of laughter than to dy by losing his head. The two blocks are unreasonable, disproportionate, hermetic to the logic and hermetic to the reallity. And this is why I perfomed the unblock, sorry but I could not resist so much I found it unfair. And anyway I very quickly concluded that any discussion was in vain as the blocker did not see fit to comment while 3 administrators affirmed that the former block was way too disproportionate. What we are making here is a blind justice at an unbelievable level. The mistake have to be corrected as soon as possible. As evidence as that a block was fully unecessary, here is the first reaction of Yann: "I deleted that talk page. @Rodhullandemu Really not nice and unnecessary. Don't do that again". That was sufficiant and Yann's first reaction was the good one. But the block that followed that was not needed and was a bad block, and the blocker did not answered to Achim55, A.Savin or to me when we tried to make him understand that it was not a real threat but a metaphor. Therefore my unblock was justified. The user should be unblocked now. And as regard to a potential warnig for his bad action, now he was warned enough. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And with these bad blocks you have pushed the user on frustration and defensive, and the things of course became worst. All this could have stopped after that. That is not well done. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_31&oldid=612930728"