This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Done I deleted all uploads of Γιάννης 10, after Hedwig deleted all uploads of Giannhs626. A lot of deletion requests were closed. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. It looks like the Belmaachi spammer (see Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir) is back with a single upload. Maybe he is testing the water. It is pretty sick though. Not only is he impersonating NATO, which I assume can take care of itself, but the image he has uploaded as File:Memorial Service Honors Selim Belmaachi Victims.jpeg is actually of Ziad Jarrah, one of the Sept 11 2001 terrorists. I have no idea what he thinks he gains from this idiocy. Is he just trying to be offensive or is there more to it? Anyway, as always, please can you block and deleteUser:NATO ministerial in Brussels and his uploaded file? Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Amitie 10g (talk·contribs) I blocked this editor for the period of three days because of his repeated uncivil comments. I discussed his rude behaviour here and tried to explain why some of his comments are rude thowards some people. Just after I wrote a long post evaluating this users comments in DR's I noticed that this user is closing DR's (example) with the reational vandalisme which is a violation of com:AGF. The user who nominated the files is not our every day vandal. Instead of explaining to the nom why the DR's are bad he just leaves a vandalism template at his talk page. I get it, the DR's are dubious but that is no reason to bring the message in such an uncivil matter assuming bad faith while Amitie 10g states the following at his userpage: "This user believes in assuming good faith and civility". He knows that people find some of his comments rude, yet he continues to be rude so the next step was a short block. Since Amitie 10g is a regular user I place this block here for review. Natuur12 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I commented on his talk page, but for the record it's worth saying something here, I think. This is rather close to being a 'cooldown block', but it's not unwarranted. Call it an 'enforced short wikibreak', if you want. I find the non-admin speedy closure of good faith DRs (that were, admittedly, not based on a valid deletion criteria) as 'vandalism' especially troubling. Amitie had been placed 'on notice' regarding his comments about other users for a while now, but it appears to have failed to produce the desired result. This seems to have been rather a reluctant 'screw it, now I have to block you for a bit' response on Natuur's part. Given everything I see, I would second this, even though it's probably a bit outside the blocking policy as written. Revent (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to highlight that Amitie does a lot of unnoticed good work on Commons. I have not sought out all past incidents of unmellow behaviour, but have not seen anything that could not be written off as temporary irritation so far. If another way of deescalating can be thought of, it should be explored, say by negotiation of a quick unblock based on taking a break from DRs for a few weeks. A carrot might work as well as a stick but we don't have many carrots in our toolbox. --Fæ (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Yeah, that was rather over the line, though somewhat provoked. While I don't think a written 'civility policy' is a good idea, there should be a consensus that admins can give minor sanctions for such things. Revent (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that, @Fae: . Yes, @Amitie 10g: is definitely what I would call a 'valued editor'... like I said on his talk, considering this a 'non-punitive enforced wikibreak' would be appropriate. I think that 'temporary irritation' is a reasonable description, it's just that editors need to be very careful about expressing such irritation toward new users (calling them vandals) in a way that might hurt the project by discouraging participation. The meaning of 'vandal' is quite well defined, and 'clueless' edits do not fit that criteria. Calling a new editor a vandal, unless they are making grossly harmful edits, is something that should be avoided. Revent (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
An illustration of a typical bell-shaped curve. Thank you Revent. Like Fae I think Amitie does a lot of work in areas that are useful. This discussion is not about those areas, but instead about an ongoing pattern of confrontational behavior. I think (including myself) there are times when we all forget to show respect for everybody all the time. Much of human behavior can be represented statistically. If we consider interactions containing only respect/disrespect on a bell-shaped curve, I would say that on Commons - as in the diagram of the expected - up to 95% of our interactions are polite and respectful and limited to the image under discussion not personal attacks on the other people in the discussion. I would also make the assumption that for most users, their suite of interactions would also distribute: 95% polite, 2.5% on one end and 2.5% on the other. This provides also a baseline for our personal interactions. Applying all this to myself, thus I assume that I've been less than totally respectful or polite (despite my best intentions) in DNs about 2.5% of the time. But that also means that I've been polite over 95% of the time. I do not consider myself the most polite admin on Commons - although that would make a wonderful barnstar to award monthly! But when I look at the behavior of Amitie in DNs, and find that in more than half the cases find harshness of written word, lack of cooperative attitude and/or lack of basic respect for other users on this very public forum with permanent histories of every interaction, I think there is perhaps a situation which needs to be addressed.
It's not just the interactions with me that are harsh or disrespectful. The word vandalism gets tossed around a lot with v-tags scattered like rose leaves on user pages. There were more personal attacks up until about a month ago when Natuur12 and I left warnings. The harshness and accusations slowed initially, but never actually ceased.
If it weren't for this lack of respect, I wouldn't have looked at contributions, but I wanted to see if it was just me - or if it extended to others. What I found was distressing, he'd taken off tags from images that had been sent to speedy/no perms or no source. After I left a message, he told me he only took off Bot tags. So I looked more carefully and saw that within a short span of time quite a few tags were removed of which very few were bot tags, most removed tags were placed there by other volunteers - several to quite a few by active admins! I opened DNs on all these that I found to permit because I didn't see why the tags had been removed in the first place. Here are some of the those Deletion Nominations:
The foregoing represents a great waste of everyone's time for images which were sent - correctly - to speedy/no source or no license and subsequently chewed up more time for no reason. It also looks a lot like like hubris, that feeling of "wow I have power, I'm going to use it" which can so easily get all of us in trouble from time to time.
It appears to me that Amitie doesn't realize that we're all in this same boat together and we might as well work together and have a reasonably good time about it than the alternative. The process by which Commons functions most smoothly includes: showing respect for everyone 95% of the time (no one is perfect), sticking to discussions about the sources, licenses and merits of the images under discussion, avoiding personal attack and refraining from leaving messages like I received on my talk page telling me what I should and shouldn't do. The most concerning passage in that most recent message is if you want to avoid my comments in your DRs, please think two or three times and do a little research before nominating, and try to do more constructive and corrective editions; obvious cases anyway will be kept. You're right in most of cases, but obvious ones are just a waste of time. That patronizing and condescending message contains a threat which is certainly beyond the scope of the situation and fails to respect me as an individual, a user, admin or 'crat. The claims that I do not think nor do research on images are insulting. I spend a lot of time researching images, sourcing and correcting licenses. I'd suspect most admins are familiar with my nominations that ask for help finding information about historical images; I see no reason to lose good material for the project whenever the alternative is possible. As for the remainder of the communique, the most cogent statement is you're right in most cases. So, despite being right most of the time I am directed to stop nominating pictures for deletion since I'm not always right some (not most) of the time. I utterly fail to see the logic in that statement. No one can possibly be right all the time. Personally I wish I was not right as many times as I am - unfortunately it's a never ending stream of copyvios and out-of-scopes mixed in with good uploads from good people. Even some of the copyvios and out-of-scopes are uploaded with the best of intentions and no intention to deceive - just a misunderstanding of the system. At end of day its each other we can count on, I'm distressed that Amitie doesn't understand that being respectful and working together is more in SCOPE than forgetting to be polite. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the tone either, considering this in fact is a work environment. Some people seems to have a problem with deletion requests in general. Anyway, I don't see anything that would justify a longer block or other disciplinary actions. I'd like to ask Amitie to try(!) to read his answers one more time before sending them out. Maybe that is a way to take some of the sharpness out. We don't have to be friends here, but we still have to work together. On that note: After the one day block of PhysalusAntiquorum(talk·contributions·Move log·block log·uploads·Abuse filter log) block user expired, the harassment continued right away. I reblocked this user. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Isn't a year a bit long? This was an unjustified revert. That is no excuse to use personal attacks but I do understand that someone who seems to be an expert at ducks, whales and seals get frustrated when his ID is reverted. This also places his DR's in a new perspective since the photographs he nominated are probably never going to be ID'd. That still doesn't make them out of scope but for somone with experience in the field of biology it can be a bit strange that we keep such images of never going to be ID'd species. Natuur12 (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 I think it's preferable to have gradually escalating blocks to encourage cooling off, unless whatever was written (which I can't see) was more than vulgar words but outing or personally targeted hate speech intended to cause harm. Very few accounts ever return to productive contributions after such a long block. --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Added: Concerning this revert by Amitie 10g as quoted above by Natuur12, it was intended to eliminate the deletion notification and, through misplaced comtempt or recklessness, endded up undoing a valid and valuable categorization improvement. This is a recurrent and problematic trait of many “defensive” edits by Amitie 10g — and also by many other users, admins included:
About removing the notification: That’s not how one disappears a DR, bogus as it may be, but rather having it closed as “speedy kept”.
About removing the categorization:
Accurate contributions are valuable on their own, and should never be undone, regardless of who contributed them (unless it was Russavia, of course, due to Reasons).
When undoing or rollbacking (= back rolling?) make sure you don’t throw the baby off with the used bathwater.
Giving the history of this user I don't think it is over the top. Indef could be, a year? No. We all can expect and deserve better behavior. Anyway, I trade for 6 months if you guys want to reduce the block. Everything else sends the wrong message. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who can't see it, Physalus' first edit after returning from the initial block was to refer to the same person with what can only be called a grossly insulting expletive in an edit summary. I'm not saying a year isn't really harsh, but it was pretty obvious the short one wasn't much of a deterrent. I'm not going to repeat it since it's hidden. Revent (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Based on my experience with blocking a lot of vandalism (often deliberately racist, sexist and homophobic) on another project, including heaps of IP blocks, the system for gradual escalation of blocks was well founded. Basically this meant that for an 1 year block there was a prior history of 4 escalating blocks. This gave plenty of opportunity for disruptive accounts to find something else to do, or to turn around and become productive editors after the first 1-day or 1-week blocks. Admittedly, the U-turn from aggressive disruption to positive contribution is very much the minority of cases, but I always felt it was a positive approach that avoided admin action being seen as punitive.
With regard to 1-year or 6-month blocks, if we are going to skip escalating blocks, then I think it would be worth just swapping the 1-year block to an indef block. Indefs are not intended to be eternal, but are intended to block the account to stop disruption until there is some evidence that the contributor understands the issue and is prepared to change their behaviour. By issuing a block with a 1 year period in the log, any other administrator reviewing a block appeal would be reticent to unblock until a good proportion of the 1 year was served. As this was only the second block, with the first for 1 day, a genuine unblock request would in my view be worth considering with "time served" of a scale of weeks rather than months.
Anyway, I'm not going to push harder; if the intent of the edit comment was harassment then I'm not sympathetic, I'm just highlighting an approach to encourage effective blocks that are more likely to change behaviour rather than jumping to effective bans. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be stressed that things like Special:Diff/139517017 are both valuable for Commons and do represent, in PhysalusAntiquorum’s own perspective, a meangingfull concession, as he uses his expertise to narrow down the possible identification of the pictured subject (from Category:Unidentified Cetaceans to Category:Unidentified Delphinidae and adding «either Tursiops or Lagenorhynchus spp.» in the edit summary) while firmly (and wrongly!) believing that such image has no place in Commons («why even add such a worthless photo???»). This kind of things, i.m.h.o., allow us to tell apart what is a genuine vandal or troll and what is a person who may be rutted in misconceptions and mired by anti-social personality traits but is ultimately both salvageable and useful. (I should add that the only direct contact I had with this user was conflictive and that s/he was brusque and unhelpful — maybe also wrong, or I was: I dropped the subject and decided, for once, to focus on positive things elsewhere instead of mounting a sterile campaign.) -- Tuválkin✉✇15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
My return
Well, after my needed breack-block expired, I returned to continue contributing and apologizing about my excessive behaviour. I didn't commented here due I had some priorities, then I need to clarify some aspects:
About the Ellin Beltz's DRs and my rude comments: Well, no excuses about my rude comments, bordering in personal attacks. I don't want to comment more about that, but as I mentioned, I considered some of her DRs somewhat problematic (specially with PD and also Free Software cases) that unfortunatelly broken my patient. I already explained my POV, and I defend too heavely these kind of files, so, there is the reason for my (too rude) comments. Anyway, I'll moderate my comments, but (for everyone in Commons, including me) be more careful when nominating files. And regarding the Free software screenshots, I opened a thread in the Village Pump, but no further discussion were made, so I'll invite to comment there.
And about the PhysalusAntiquorum editions tagged by Me as vandalism: Well, almost everyone disagree with my actions against his editions. But, considering the several DRs and summaries with personal attacks and coarse language (much before my editions against his ones), I considered too heurisitacally his editions as vandalism. But, even if everyone disagree with that, his latst DRs seems disruptive anyway, IMHO.
Therefore, is important to discus the hehaviour of the Editors, but more important IMHO are the Media Files and how we handle them. Now I'm more calmed, so I'll try to improve my behaviour and civility, but I will continue to defend vigorously the Media Files in Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
PrincesitaSweet (talk·contribs) has uploaded nothing but copyvio musician-related images. An end of copyvios warning was given, and another copyvio image was subsequently uploaded with a clearly false self-work claim. No attempts at discussing issues. --Nick (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It was likely because of more than one source of cascading protection. Message hidden by protecting the file itself. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. That are side efects of forgotten mesages about enwiki main poage protection that already expored. Forgotten templates removed. Ankry (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for missing those leftover transclusions.
Following the advent of cascading protection and related changes to the English Wikipedia's procedures, this tag has become less important and seems to have largely fallen out of use. I seem to be the last remaining administrator to utilize the template with any degree of regularity, so it might be time to retire it. —David Levy20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please review this file for protection against further rapid overwrites. It has popped up on User:Fæ/SignificantReverts after being overwritten 4 times in 2 days, and appears significant as it is in use on 999 main-space pages. --Fæ (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Greetings: Please review [1] contributions and user page. I deleted the images which had been nominated, but found the content disturbing (as did the anonymous nominator) and request a review of this situation due to the subject in the images likely being under the age of consent. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I deleted, clear vandalism, his user page and indef blocked (vandalism-only account).
The types of cases that should be referred are listed at Oversighters. Anyone who comes across "questionable" photography due to apparent age of subject or the type of material that might be intended to harass should raise it with oversight, it may be part of a pattern they are aware of. If in doubt, drop them a note. Personally, if I had sysop tools, I would quickly open IRC and find an oversight member to have an off-wiki private chat with before taking action. There are cases where on-wiki discussion may not be appropriate, or indeed where a deleting admin may be uncomfortable being seen to be dealing with uploads of certain types, or being in a position of having to answer questions about their action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There isn't a clear problem that requires urgent action by OS but just in case I mention. I known the protocol with OSs: IRC, list, ... :-P Alan(talk)15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I get the impression that few admins on Commons have reason to rely on oversight in any year (maybe this sort of thing is not all that frequently a problem? ), so it's worth reminding everyone else of why they are there when we get a chance. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
What I see is yet another poorest quality homeporn with non-identifiable person. Fully agree with deletion+block, but no case for oversights. --A.Savin15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Block evasion, Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation
Well, we assumed the user to be intelligent enough to understand the sentence following the one you cited: "This one violates our username policy and can be seen (intentional or not, it doesn’t matter) as a reference to a terrorist organisation." --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Even disregarding that it's essentially the same username (blatantly ignoring why it was a problem) creating a new account just to reupload files that were already deleted is disruptive. Revent (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. The Belmaachi spammer (see Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir) is back. This time he is calling himself User:Reports-Ceylon and he has added massively ham-fisted copyright infringement as an additional string to his tuneless fiddle. One of the images he has uploaded, claiming it as his own work, has somebody else's watermark all over it. As always, please can somebody block him, delete his uploads and maybe do a quick check for any sleeper accounts? Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Done Logo had no hits (at all) on Google, and the only edits here and on idwiki were indeed adding the exact same promotional text (that was also in the file description). Left the talk page open for now, so they can ask about a new username if it's just being innocently clueless. Revent (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
History of Persia(talk·contributions·Statistics) has uploaded a lot of images mis-tagging the licenses (e.g. some images are copyrighted, some are licensed under NC by their sources, but have all been uploaded here as CC-BY-SA-4.0). User has been blocked on en.wiki for persistent copyright violations. I've tagged a few images as copyvio, if someone else can take a look at the images I haven't checked yet, that'll be good. Cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot more; I had only gone through and tagged a few, I've done three more now and it'd be helpful if someone else also goes through the uploads, especially images of coins (I'm hazy on that -- would they qualify as a reproduction of a PD work and so on). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff03:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Images of ancient coins (that were not licensed at source) sent to DR. Images of 3D artworks from livius.org (that were CC-BY-NC-SA at source) nuked. A number of {{Extracted image}}s from other works on Commons properly linked and attributed. I didn't look at all the various maps and things, though. Better? Revent (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Can in the end someone please stop this user uploading copyvios times and again and again and again and again and again and again...
-- Ies (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Expletives aren't usually allowed in names. There are better ways of expressing views and opinions. Besides, Commons is an image repository not a political soapbox or a bathroom wall. INeverCry01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
We can have categories and files that have bad words (if they really meant that), but usernames cannot have bad words (well, the username FuckProtection might mean he/she hates protections here in Wikimedia Commons). That username is not funny either. --★Poké9523:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Ping @Alan: I think edit protection is not needed. That would prevent users from adding/removing categories (although we have {{Editprotected}}). Move and upload protection is only needed. ★Poké9502:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Perfect!! Edit protection changed to autoconfirmed users (move/upload only admins) -> 1 year
Can someone remove the edit protection of those files? They prevent users from changing categories. File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg also has an edit request since 8 October 2015 that is not yet fulfilled. And, I am going to fix a warning at File:Cc-by-sa.svg. No need to remove the move and upload protection (that is also not recommended, though). Just remove the edit protection. Thanks, ★Poké9506:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The major part of the edit request drama (the licensing) was taken care of after a long discussion at VPC, with a very tedious set of edits to way too many CC logo pages. The 'source' is just an artifact of the file being transferred from idwiki...that was the immediate source, and it's used there many thousands of times. I'll change it and close the request, tho. Revent (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Given it was a mobile edit that just removed part of a template, I don't think we can really call it 'vandalism'...that type of thing is too easy to do inadvertently on the mobile client. No objection to a username block, tho...I was rather tempted myself, though 'poop' is pretty mild. Revent (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
A more appropriate response would be for A) User:Hedwig in Washington to retract the nasty and insulting accusation s/he left in the deletion log for File:BrowserToolbarsInInternetExplorer11.png and B) just delete the images in question so that everybody and his or her grandmother doesn't feel the need to continue to point the long finger of "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!!! OMFG!!!". I think the herd has criminalized me enough over icons that may not actually meet the threshold of originality to be protected by US copyright law. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear administrators, can you please block User:Liselotte Dobroschelski. S/he has deliberately inserted false information (e.g. fake image sources), for instance this image File:Dorpshuis 't Groene Woud in Rubensdijk.jpeg, which is a small copy of File:Eenvoudig dorpshuis met ingezwenkte lijstgevel op plint met aanbouw onder wolfsdak Markstraat 3 Borne.jpg. The same person made an article on NL wikipedia with the title Rubensdijk, an not existing location, while the image is from the town of Borne. Thanks. Elly (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Commons Delinker only delinks recently deleted files, right? In that case, making the page fully protected for a day or two should be enough. However, I think that it is a problem that Commons Delinker removes file links like that. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The following accounts have been globally blocked on or after November 2 with a log comment of "(WMF Banned User)". They probably need to be checked for recent Commons activity:
@Davidwr: I doubt there are many Commons editors (at least, among those who pay attention to such things) who are unaware that Russavia is socking prolifically, and continuing to upload files. What there does not seem to be, however, is any kind of real drive here to engage in sock-hunting... the WMF has people who are paid to do so, we do not, and they are blocking his socks far faster than we would locate them anyhow. There also seems to be no real consensus to delete what seem to be 'valid' images, that were created by photographers who have nothing to do with Russavia, merely because he was the person who uploaded them.... 'uploaded by a banned user' is not a criteria for speedy deletion on Commons. There are indeed a number of people who are quite unhappy that he is continuing to edit here... I don't think anyone, at least 'openly', is actually endorsing it. It's very obvious at this point, however, that he is quite capable of evading his WMF ban at will, and there do not seem to be any admins willing to take on the seemingly 'full-time' job of engaging in some kind of battle with him. If he was actually uploading copyvios, or vandalizing file pages, that would undoubtedly be different, but I haven't seen any evidence that his uploads or edits to file pages are at all problematic, other than the fact of who is doing them. Revent (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Flagged at User:Fæ/SignificantReverts, there's a bit of revert warring going on, apparently on formatting detail. As this is used on BLP articles and is on 104 mainspace articles, could this be considered for protection to encourage more dialogue please? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Shortly after 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 was closed, I noticed that user:zanhe removed the "disputed factual accuracy" template on a file whose accuracy had been the object of repeated discussion for over 5 years, and despite the fact that most of the issues raised by different contributors over a lapse of several years remained pending. As 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 was already blocked (and I assumed the block would concern my global account), I created the account 6-A04-W96 for the sole purpose of reinserting the template. The choice of the account name made it clear I was the same contributor, and I never used simultaneously several accounts (6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 and 6-A04-W96 were used as successive accounts).
To my surprise, the account 6-A04-W96 was blocked with the tag "vandalism-only account" without any further explanation. This "block for vandalism" is now used in an ANI and other places to discredit my past contributions (e.g. here, here, here)
I have no history of sanction in any of the projects I have contributed for over 5 years. I have no intention to join back the project, but this block for "vandalism" (where there is obviously no vandalism) is tarnishing all my previous contributions over the past five years.
I wish to leave with a clean record, and would appreciate if it is possible to:
Blocked and reblocked as requested, as "User request", with an block message indicating that the block is not due to a policy violation. Talk page access is still open, so that you can request a future unblock if wanted. Revent (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This is promotion-only user. I nominated his/her userpage in en.wiki for speedy deletion, let's see, what happens. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I had blocked him for 3 days (only) for his vandalism after being warned. Only thereafter I realized its likely a SP of Fritella and might deserve to be indef'd als a vandalism-only account. --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
After an extended discussion at File talk:Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg, and with what appears to be the consensus of several editors involved with the past issues regarding this topic here and on other wikis, I've applied indefinite full-protection to these four files. For those unaware of the issue, this particular map has been at the heart of a political conflict that has gone on for decades now, and the general subject has been the center of much drama (including an enwiki ArbCom case). Because of the context, these particular images are unfortunately quite likely to be tarmpered with, if nothing else than by slanting the image descriptions to match a particular POV. We seem to have worked out something everyone can live with 'here', for now, and 'drive-by' edits making changes to the descriptions without discussion would be highly counterproductive, unfortunately. Revent (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Template:User at project is currently without protection. As it is included in 333000 pages, semi-protection (or even full protection) could be useful, although it didn't get vandalized yet. It is one of the templates used to include copyright information in file description pages. --mfb (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Done Yesterday I deleted speedily all his uploads, but forgot to block him. Today I see, that his contributions have stopped, so for now no block is needed. If he continues to upload suspicious images or vandalize own userpage, then block is appropriate. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done. Sorry to see you leaving, but you can just stop editing in case you don't feel confortable doing it anymore. However, this is not what blocks are for. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱CL@S˲» 04:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why this page is protected, because it is used by no page. I would like or to deprotect the page, or at least to put in "no wiki" the 2 categories. Therefore the page will not be categorise in the main space. --Berdea (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done This is not a reason to block somebody in Commons. (S)He has uploaded only one image, which is marked with template "missing permission". No action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Can temporary full protection be applied to this file? There is currently a consultation and series of referenda in New Zealand about what the future flag of the country should be [6] and some editors here are pre-empting that discussion and changing the image from the current flag which is widely used on en:wp in templates where the flag of New Zealand is displayed. Nthep (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, does it make sense to fully protect this file name as a generic file name? There was another file there previously that was renamed to a more sensible name, there is usage left and some redirects are also protected.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The filename is obviously too generic. A map with that name was uploaded three times, including one clear copyright violation and one advertising. I encourage you to replace the usage. Of course, other redirects onto file:Name.jpg must also be protected as too generic filenames. Taivo (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Beena and Rabia at formal dinner. its my family pic and share by user Rangbaz
Dear Administrator. My family picture is shared on the Wikipedia. I request to delete the picture immediately and please share with me the person details. or share with me the process. best Taimoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taimoorkhankhel (talk • contribs)
This user on Wikimedia is a CU indeffed blocked hoaxer (sock) of a serial sock abuser on Wikipedia named User:Artin Mehraban (also still here on Wikimeda). (see also, our concerns regarding the content he continues to spam upload here). He's CU blocked on Wikipedia but he has tons of hoax material lingering forth on Wikimedia, as well as some very active accounts. He uses these accounts to return back on Wikipedia once in a while with the hoax material he continues to upload/create here (see also; the SPI case I linked). We've already mass removed/AfD'd alot of his content on Wikipedia, but a major root of the problem remains on Wikimedia. Could any admin take an appropriate action regarding this? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Yann, thank you. I assume we manually have to delete the images, right? There are some we'd like to keep (some are useful), but alot should be deleted as well. Please let me know what your opinion is, for me and some moderators on Wikipedia have discussed our concerns regarding many of his bogus uploads. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Done Yes, by style it is likely. I blocked him/her indefinitely and will delete his/her uploads (small photos without metadata). Taivo (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Can someone protect Herbythyme's talk page? It has been frequently vandalized (see history). Maybe protect that talk page from non-autoconfirmed users (edit=autoconfirmed), with an expiry time of 1 week or 3 days. Regards, ★Poké9503:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts folks. Personally my policy has always been to ignore idiots - it tends to work even if it takes a longer time sometimes... Again personally I'd not bother deleting the revisions - plenty has been said about me that is worse in the history here and elsewhere - not worth the effort in my opinion. Cheers --Herbytalk thyme09:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please block that user for having an inappropriate username. The username, when spaces are added, means "Ken the shit". Thank you. ★Poké9508:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Good catch, I read it as Kent heshit or Kenthes hit. Davidwr (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Update I didn't see it, but another possible reading is "Kent, he's hit" but without the comma or apostrophe. Davidwr (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The userpage is full of deleted images and a warning and still the user keeps spamming exif-free images with unclear copyright status. /Hangsna (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please block that user for having an inappropriate/promotional username. Also, I also suspect that this account is one of Romy Santiago's socks (see contributions for details). If this account will not be blocked, then I need checkuser. ★Poké9500:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
user flipped images to avoid easy delection by Google-images check
I have blocked new Lavezzicavani3 (talk·contribs) on the spot for 6 months, when I found that not only all of his 4 uploads were copyvios, but that 3 of these had been horizontally flipped to prevent easy copyvio-detection by Google-Images check. The problem is that this behaviour had nearly been succesful, as the 3 images did indeed not yield any hits on Google-Images. Only, when I flipped them back manually, all 3 yielded hits of earlier publications. In such a case even an indef block might be appropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment I don't recommend protecting the map, as it is an updating map. I recommend instead blocking for 1 day those involved in the upload war. If not, just warn those involved. --★Poké9512:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This is Kumdano9 that you should to punish.Il it would revoke spends time since November and the justifications he accuses us of being pro Saudi Arabia while our modifications are sourced by the card Anglophone module, press articles and Memel 'Advanced various camps in the article francophone.Il revoked dozens of fois.It is a forced passage. Panam2014 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I warned the most recent users involved in this edit war. If they come back to make edit war, will be blocked. I ask those involved to discuss the matter. Érico(msg)18:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the File:Naval Ensign of Finland.svg, official name of which in Finnish is Kielekkeinen valtiolippu, in English - Tongued State Flag. Now the Navy of Finland is not even the primary user of this flag. This flag is reserved for Finnish Military in general. All military units not having their own unique flag bear it. Air Force HQ for example. If the Tongued State Flag is too much for the English ears, the file could be renamed the Military Flag of Finland. The question is: how to do it, since I can not rename protected files. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I found it on flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/58461621@N00/6808982172/) which address you removed from the file to make it look like 'no source'. The flickr license was reviewed and found to be correct. I don't understand your claim that your property, which looks like a beach full of people, cannot be photographed? I am restoring the source material removed from the file, please do not change that file template again. If you'd like to explain why you think this image violates your copyright, please leave more information here, but do not change the file. I do see that the flickr user "Sicilia" seems to have collected images from elsewhere on flickr. If you can provide the actual source of the image, not through "Sicilia"'s flickr page, we could review the license from that image. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
hello, we are a year later now (2016). This picture will became pd someday? No? I m not a 'vandale', I contribute here since 2011! Best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The photo will likely be in the public domain someday. It may actually be in the public domain already – but you need to provide the necessary evidence of that and follow the correct procedure. And yes, repeatedly recreating previously deleted content at your own volition when you've been told that doing so will get you blocked is disruptive and tantamount to vandalism. —LX (talk, contribs)16:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not pursuing you. As far as I know, my only interaction with you is in relation to this particular image and your actions in that context. In fact, I've refrained from reviewing your other uploads which have similar problems with missing evidence of public domain status, even though such a review is probably called for.
Ok, it seems important for you to be right. Let's this end. Everything is in black and white for you, is'nt it? Review all my contribs, ask for blocking me, i would determine myself afterwards. (Last post)--Madelgarius (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
This user has uploaded 438 files that have not yet been deleted and about 20 that have already been deleted, some twice. I have just nominated 225 of them for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Madelgarius. I would not be surprised if many of the remainder are also problems.
Madelgarius brags above that he or she has been editing here since 2011. It is apparent, however, that he has no interest in following the rules, since he has repeated the same mistakes over and over. Since I have just made a deletion request, I am "involved" and should not be the one that blocks him or her, but I think it should be done. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The front page of English wikipedia features this image which is terrible. I have prepared a version with slight brightening and a cleaned background but am unable to upload it because of the wikipedia/en/ automated blocking. If someone could give me rights to upload anyway that would be nice, otherwise, if they could temporary unblock so I can upload (like in the next 5 minutes) that would be great too. Otherwise, I worry I edited the image for nothing and tens of thousands of people are seeing a crap image every minute. PS. I have been an Admin on English since 2003 or so. Pratyeka (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that failed. Nobody responded at all! The block has expired and I have uploaded [File:MotorolaStarTAC.jpg the new image] even though now nobody will ever see it. Sigh. Pratyeka (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
All uploads nuked (as they were copyvio and spam) and 2nd account indef-blocked for being obvious SP of the first one. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Another one is Son778 (talk·contribs), who had gone undeleted since March 2015. All his uploads are of the same type as of the above and contain the address "son778.com", which links to the same online casino as "ess789.com". --Túrelio (talk)
Comment When the situation becomes severe, I recommend to create an abuse filter to capture edits by the ESS789 family. ★Poké9510:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't suggest creating a own abusefilter for every problem user. Commons has only 1000 abf condition. If this limit is reached filters will stop working correctly. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I think this situation will just cost just about 7-15 conditions. I am sure it will not reach the 1000 condition limit. Also, this limit only applies per abuse filter, not for all abuse filters. If that applies for all abuse filters (not per), there will just be a limited number of abuse filters enabled, and the English Wikipedia's abuse filters will not work correctly. ★Poké9511:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
7-15 are too much for a user. We can't crate for every problematic user a filter. And no, it not applies per AbuseFilter. There are limitations set in initial setting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
So that's why I said above if the situation becomes severe. I know that filters cannot be created for every problematic user. ★Poké9511:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Could someone else please handle that because I'm already involved. He doesn't get it. After warnings and block (has ended today) now he did the 5th upload of the same scan from a postcard --Achim (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
As semi-protection is ineffective here, I fully protected the file indefinitely. I am not totally sure, that it is right decision, so I will not protest, if somebody changes the protection level. Taivo (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Romy Santiago is definitely sock of Terry Santiago and I blocked him indefinitely. Louiecampo – I'm not sure, but Denniss blocked him indefinitely anyway. But how to mark the sockpuppeteer, if user Bertrand101 is not registered in Commons? Taivo (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Please unblock user BeGasy(talk·contributions·Move log·block log·uploads·Abuse filter log) block user. He was blocked on Commons after repeated uploading of non-free files, and afterwards twice block evasion. I meet him on meta due to an adminship (prolongation) request for a small Wikipedia. I wanted to know why he was blocked on Commons and asked him. Since English did not work, I asked a local admin to help me talk to him about the block in Malagasy. Here is the translated reply for your consideration [9] (original [10]). He has functioned as temp admin for mg.wikipedia since june 2015 without any trouble. The user means well and now understands he did wrong. I believe he is not a future threat to Commons, and the block is no longer needed. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the user talk page at Commons, I cannot see how the user could not understand the warnings but continue with the problematic behaviour even after being blocked. If I'm mistaken, please advise. --Krd12:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment as an uninvolved admin. I can see no reason at all why this user should be unblocked. There was persistent uploading of copyright violations. There were plenty of warnings with the ability to view them in many languages. There was many attempts to evade the blocks. I'd see no reason to unblock personally and I agree with Krd & Yann. --Herbytalk thyme13:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment Admin on mgwiki and uploading copyvios using socks, good grief... @Taketa: How do we know that this will stop? I mean, really, how can he be administrator on a sister project and not know a little bit on how to communicate and a little, tiny, bit about copyright? Do you see any chance of him staying unblocked? We would have to stretch AGF quite a lot in order to unblock him. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)02:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
People who write, don't really need to communicate or ever upload images. Specially on small wikis with only 5 or 10 editors it can happen they help as admin. I can image someone wants to put up images for the first time, runs into problems, and keeps stubbornly trying. It is bad behaviour, but they have now stated in their own language that they will not repeat the behaviour. Simply said, his community is aware and he has publicly stated to them he will not repeat. If he repeats, his admin flag on his home wiki becomes part of the conversation as well, since that is temp and decided on meta. So considering his promise, and the commitment of his reputation on his homewiki, I personally see enough reason to assume good faith and try. All the best, Taketa (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Taketa: Hi, I have personally no reason to oppose unblocking if other admins agree, but I would like to see him acknowledging on Commons that he won't sock or upload copyright violations again. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment I handled one of the RfCUs, so I'm not sure whether that makes me involved or not, but I am against an unblock. AGF is not a suicide pact, and indeed there is no obligation or merit for that assumption in the presence of such substantial evidence to the contrary. I find the framing of this as a simple language issue and misunderstanding as disingenuous. I can think of no scenario in which a genuinely good faith user would act in such a way as to produce more than two dozen talk page notices and at least seven sockpuppets. Misbehavior on this level requires substantial time and evidence of good contributions to be overcome; that the user was given the sysop flag on a small project on which he has only 800-some edits is not persuasive in the slightest. Эlcobbolatalk16:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Done 49 uploads, all copyright violations without exception. I blocked him indefinitely as copyvio-only account. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
When I view this photo it is good BUT, when I go to the bottom left hand corner of this page where there's a link to view page, it takes me to the celebrity pix.com full of pornography. The second image with this same pix take me to commons Wikimedia.org which is what we should see. Just wanted to inform you of what I see. I don't know if you see the same thing too. Let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pualei (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I have tried to explain to the user about the basic s of copyright and that you don't use copyright protected material on Commons both here and on the users svwiki talk page. Based on that and the users history of uploading non-free images I recommend a block of the user. -- Tegel (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually more like "get a clue"/"get the message"... but yeah. I informed the user that we don't talk to each other that way here. —LX (talk, contribs)13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The File:India-locator-map-blank.svg hasn't been updated after the creation of new w:Telangana state in India since past two years. I've updated the map with new state but I'm unable to upload the same since its currently protected against overwriting. I request to unprotect the file so that I can upload updated map file that includes new state. Please see related discussion here. Thanks. Csyogi (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The file is now semi-protected and has never met non-IP-vandalism. I am not sure, that full protection is needed, so I leave it semi-protected. But I will not protest, if somebody will fully protect it. Taivo (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have now indef-blocked Beaflowers (talk·contribs), as after his 1-week block he returned to his problematic edit-behaviour. He is obviously not here to contribute to the mission of Commons, but either to get dating-contacts or to troll. He has shown the same pattern of behaviour in his edits on :en[11]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not so familiar with policies, processes, and procedures over here on Commons, so my apologies if I've got anything wrong. It certainly seems likely to me that he is probably breaking rules here as well, so filing this in a good faith belief that it's needed and useful to Commons.
FWIW, the userspace page on enwiki (which is pending speedy deletion as spam) is the same as what was deleted here, and is also unambiguous copyright infringement, consisting of sections of text taken verbatim from 3-4 other security company websites. Revent (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The majority are open proxies so blockable for a reasonable period. I did a fair few yesterday. Not sure if those whole ranges are open - would make blocking easier. With policy being against use of open proxies it is simply finding the time to deal with it. Cheers --Herbytalk thyme08:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. All users were blocked. The improper use of multiple accounts was confirmed by the CUs of Portuguese Wikipedia. Thanks for reporting. Érico(talk)19:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Spambot
Flooding AbuseLog attempting to upload files involving email databases:
Done Blocked by Herbythyme for 1 week. I also archived their talk page into 2 archives (their talk page is too long, the template include size has exceeded, and the load time is 2 seconds). --★Poké9512:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This user has been uploading copyright violations as his own work for at least a year now and has been notified about it many times according to his/her talkpage. I just today tagged at least six of his/her other uploads as copyvios and I can only assume this will continue. I think a block may be in order here. Thanks, Local hero (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Érico. This user is banned on English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry and appears to have at least one sock on commons, User:Iliridaboy. They both have very similar uploads and he appears to be using this account to evade the block on the Sinani milaim account. Local hero (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done Only 2 edits, both deleted: a userpage and a file upload. I think, that block is not needed yet; (s)he is warned and that's enough (for now). Taivo (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done Only 2 edits, both deleted: a userpage and a file upload. I think, that block is not needed yet; (s)he is warned and that's enough (for now). Taivo (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I have recently come across several blatant copyright violations from this user. I (succesfully) reported one file for speedy deletion a week ago, this morning I (successfully) reported seven more, and I have just submitted a request regarding another two. I see that most of the remaining files uploaded by this user are tagged for deletion (although not speedy).
Looking back at the users track record, I find that a "last warning" was given 4 January. Since then some sixteen files have been deleted, plus one speedy deletion apart from mine. Currently, around 10 files are listed for deletion, but not yet deleted.
I am not a very frequent user at Commons, so I am not quite sure about how things work here. I do feel, however, that something needs to be done; the user in question has obviously no clue about how copyright works. Also the few files that still are not marked for deletion should probably be checked. Regards! --TU-nor (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Uploaded 7 more files on February 10 (as mentioned above), all speedily deleted as "Blatant copyright violation; watermarked picture" on the 11th. Indefinitely blocked, with talk page access open. @Pokéfan95: Thanks for reporting (er, chiming in) @TU-nor: To you, thanks for reporting. Revent (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Done, blocked for one week. I no see need to block for a longer period. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this IP, and if he still keep the disruptive behavior, will again be blocked. PauloMSimoes, obrigado por avisar. Érico(talk)02:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
ZachDelRey (talk·contribs) It is with a great deal of reluctance that I am doing this report. After numerous attempt to encourage Zach to read up on copyright issues, he continues to be both dismissive and showing an inability of adhering to the policies as set out here. Case in point has been the uploading of Lana Del Rey's signature as his own work. Discussions about image policy, answers to his questions and clarifications have been given to him numerous times. Both on the Lana Del Rey talk page and his own. All to no avail. If feel that as editors we have hit a brick wall and have no option but to stop him from adding further copyrighted images in future through a block.
Would it be possible to block Connor7617 for copyright violations? I recently ran a sockpuppet investigation on the English Wikipedia for this account, and it was determined that he was a sock of Bwmoll3, who was blocked on that site in 2014 for massive copyright violations. They then abandoned that account and created the above one, and continued to upload licenses with flimsy copyright tags, etc. Revent and I have tagged two hundred images of theirs as having no source, which goes in line with the issues that they have had before. I suspect there may be as many as twelve to fourteen thousand images on here, many with no valid source or missing other sorts of criteria, so I would like to prevent any more damage from occurring, if possible. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Info I archived a lot of their talk page warnings, which had exceeded the template include size. I archived them into 3 archives. --★Poké9502:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ktr101: I think (at this point, at least) that it might be worth trying to 'educate' him, get him to hopefully stop uploading for a while (and then go much slower) and work on fixing his old stuff... I say this because there is likely a fair amount that is actually 'okay' if he is telling the truth (that they are objects he personally scanned from the archives of a historical society) and he fixes them, which he can't do if blocked. If he keeps uploading things that are problematic (or any explicit copyvios) after having it explained, then he will definitely merit an immediate block.
I would not argue against a community decision to ban him on the grounds of not being trustworthy about copyright status, however... I just somewhat suspect that if we do so, we'll end up having to nuke many of his old uploads that 'might' be okay on the basis of the precautionary principle, as not being verifiable. (I also would not object if some other admin decides to just push the button.) Even if Connor 'is' Bwmoll3, that account was never blocked here, so its not really a case of sockpupptery for us... the accounts here never overlapped, by a matter of nearly six months. The problem I have with just 'blocking' him myself is that I don't see that anyone has ever really talked to the Connor account until quite recently, in over a year of uploading something over 4000 images... he seems to have mainly uploaded stuff that looked 'okay enough' that nobody noticed that it was a 'ton' of such material. It's at least on the surface much more a matter of poor sourcing than 'blatant' copyvios, until he started the beer labels and matchbooks. Revent (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I would be okay with that approach, as I am hoping for a good faith turnaround at this point. If it can be done here, then I would be willing to see if they could come back onto Wikipedia. However, I am also going to remain cautious until such time, due to the sheer amount of issues that they caused on Wikipedia, and then once he was blocked, continued doing the exact same thing. In the end though, I appreciate your help, and I would love to see them become a productive member on both sites. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Relevant here, this DR, apparently from a copyright owner whose image was incorrectly assumed by Connor7617 to be a government work without evidence. There are likely many, many of these... if Connor is not both willing to help with fixing them, and willing to take an active role in doing so, a mass DR of many of his uploads might well be in order. Revent (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Russavia is banned and there is nothing we can do, so the discussion is pointless. Closing as no action is needed. You can discuss in Meta to lift the ban.Taivo (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2016 (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.
I am in doubt that Yann's block of Russavia, with the reason Intimidation/harassment, was wrong. The block was made in July 2015. I don't believe Russavia had harassed anyone (especially INeverCry) on Commons except Jimbo Wales, but that Wales thing was old (2 years ago). Actually, Yann blocked Russavia to support Natuur12 accusing Russavia of a crime. But Yann is an involved admin, and he must not block Russavia due to his involvement. If you will see Russavia's post in my talk page (see the permalink above), Yann is seriously pissed when Russavia opposed the URAA thing. Also, he said that Yann and other admins (which also includes Jcb) revdelled Russavia's defense that he did not made a crime. But of course, Yann, Jcb, and Natuur12 will defend by stating that it is a violation of the ToU. But accusing someone of a crime is a serious thing, and if you are wrong, you will be gravely sanctioned. These admins just take advantage of Russavia's ban.
If I, Russavia, or someone would provide a strong evidence that Russavia's block is wrong, then I request to unblock Russavia locally (this will not affect Russavia's global ban by the WMF however), not because I support him, but because the block was made in bad faith.
And please note to always remain civil in this discussion. No personal attacks, disrupting point, nor unnecessary drama please. Thanks, ★Poké9512:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
What is the exact problem you are trying to solve here? Whatever the outcome of this request would be, it has no effect. If WMF would decide to lift the global ban, the situation would be very different. (In such a case I would probably support a local unblock.) - Jcb (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say so, but this is rather beating a dead horse... it won't make any actual difference, and is bound to cause drama. Revent (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Aside from all else, this is a pointless discussion because the Russavia account is globally locked. When an account is globally locked, nobody can log into it, so blocking or unblocking the account is pointless. This is distinct from the global ban of the person known as "Russavia", because the global ban is a technical measure meant to enforce the global ban. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not talking about the global lock (and I even mentioned it above that it has no effect in the global ban of Russavia), I am talking about the local block. If unblocking Russavia is pointless, then why is the block placed in the first place, if there was already a global lock for it? What I am thinking is that the local block is wrong, not the global ban made by the WMF. All of you three are not answering my question. Is that what an "administrator" means, not answering questions? ★Poké9509:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: One last comment. People are not wanting to argue about the local block because it makes no 'actual' difference (he can't log into the account either way) and stirring up the argument again would just be a divisive waste of time. Arguing (or potentially even wheel-warring) about something that won't change anything is not helpful... it will just make opinions more polarized. Really, please, just drop it. If Russavia is ever globally unlocked (which is quite unlikely) then we can talk about it then. Revent (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2016 (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.
Reasons for reporting: In 2014 this user uploaded, marking as own works, some logos and screenshots of a Russian newspaper named "Diletant" (see his talk and this DR -1st and 2nd-), now deleted. Btw I found 3 other files marked as own works, that are a cover (se ruwp file), and two logos (logo 1 and logo 2). I link also this file, because I don't know if it is a copyvio or not. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg03:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Block seems pointless unless it is indefinite, generally copyright vio blocks are a week or two long; this user has not contributed since August 2015. Riley Huntley (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Block extended by Revent. Half of the contributions are constructive, half are useful.. I'm going through their edits reverting those that are not questionable. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Achim55 I extended it to a month because of the additional pile of bad edits in the abuse filter log, over a week or so. It appears to be a private proxy... it might be worth allowing registration (it's likely multiple people behind it). Revent (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Cross-wiki socking
I am not sure where to report this, but I try here.
User:Albanian Historian is active on en-Wiki and was here indef-blocked on Commons for persistently uploading copyrighted material.
A couple of days later the account of User:Cunmulaj started uploading similar material. A few edits were also made on en-Wiki using some of the pictures.
Already checked, confirmed and blocked. That was quick. Thanks for the help! An additional question: Will this information sieve over to en-Wiki, or will it be necessary to rise the question there separately? --TU-nor (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it will be better if we share this information to enwiki. Albanian Historian is just spreading copyright violations, and enwiki doesn't allow copyvios. They should be warned there too. ★Poké9510:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting this user be blocked. All uploads that are photographic in nature are very likely copyright violations. All non-photographic uploads appear to be logos taken from various companies. Many are pd-text in nature, while some pass TOO. Review is needed for the latter, mass deletion is needed for all of the former. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: Hedwig marked another large batch as 'no source' on the 23rd... they will become speedies on Tuesday if not fixed (which seems unlikely, since he's blocked). Revent (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Done I blocked main account for a month and sockpuppet indefinitely. Also I deleted most uploads of Ior analisac. Taivo (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please block User:Risctakers for violating the username policy. Their username is obviously based on w:RISC Takers FC, and they were also blocked on the English Wikipedia for violating the username policy. They also uploaded File:RISC Takers logo.png, which is the official logo for the club. I am not convinced that the user has the authority to upload a corporate logo under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. — Jkudlick • t • c • s20:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Done I blocked the IP for 3 days and semi-protected the file for a year. The file has never met a non-IP-vandalism and I think, that full protection is not needed. Yann closed the deletion request. I think, that protection of DR page is also not needed. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed. All blocked. Эlcobbola talk 18:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Done I deleted all uploads of Γιάννης 10, after Hedwig deleted all uploads of Giannhs626. A lot of deletion requests were closed. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
I deleted, clear vandalism, his user page and indef blocked (vandalism-only account).
Question Oversight any deleted image???? Alan (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
), so it's worth reminding everyone else of why they are there when we get a chance. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Revent (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Info @Taivo: Looks like his/her userpage in enwiki has been deleted. ★Poké95 11:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done. Sorry to see you leaving, but you can just stop editing in case you don't feel confortable doing it anymore. However, this is not what blocks are for. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 04:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment I blocked Artin_Mehraban and Persia10101 undef. for socking. Yann (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Support blocking all IPs listed above. I suggest to block those IPs for 1 week. --★ Poké95 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
PendingOppose block per Riley. --★ Poké95 03:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
