Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 15

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Blocks and protections

User:Geraldo Suicida

This user continues to upload non-free songs after warnings. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Geraldo Suicida where a new set of non-free songs has been listed every day since Sunday. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Marianoguarino76

This user has been uploading copyright violations for years, despite repeated warnings. Taketa (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  Blocked for 1 month Hope this will get his attention. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

FWIW: Blocked sockmaster User:Seattle24x7 and his socks User:Searchwriter & User:Seattleditor. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Fourth of July fireworks behind the Washington Monument, 1986.jpg

Request for full protection of File:Fourth of July fireworks behind the Washington Monument, 1986.jpg for the next day or so. I am currently dealing with ongoing vandalism of the image (User:Thomas Deanna Johnson and User:Fukkubich replacing it with ceiling fans). --Hydraton31 (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done by JuTa. Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Walkhouse1

User was given an {{End of copyvios}} warning, then an hour later uploaded a copyvio image (File:Picture of BitGold Headquarters.png) and claimed it as own-work, despite uploading the same image on enwiki with its true source (copied from Google) as a fair use image en:File:BitGold headquarters at 334 Adelaide St. West with Billboard on adjacent building".png. Nick (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

File:IPv4 blocs.svg nominated for deletion several times

This files has been uploaded in 2010 and contains data about IPv4 up to that year, and today, obviously, that data may be inconsistent, but no reason for deleting this graphic. Nominated three times for the same reason. Please semiprotect this file for further non-sense DRs. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Added the same protection to the DR page, to prevent creation of unlinked bogus DRs. Revent (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

PK1913 blocked as well as his puppet User:3jyuku per DUCK. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

SigaJefinho2

Please block SigaJefinho2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for evasion of block of Sigajefinho (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + continuing to upload similar copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 06:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Tomandjerry211

FYI, I blocked this account (Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs)) as per request on my talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Vladlen666

I blocked today Vladlen666 indefinitely, because he asked it in my userpage. He wants to leave Wikipedia. Taivo (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Iraq27

Please block Iraq27 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for evasion of block of SigaJefinho2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  = sock of Sigajefinho (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + continuing to upload identical copyright violation (today: File:Panorama do Município.jpg versus File:Panorama-de-Iraquara,Bahia,Brasil.jpg = yesterday) in spite of multiple warnings for all users. Gunnex (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Re-uploaded copyvio speedied, sock indeffed. Revent (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:User heterosexual

  Resolved

Template:User heterosexual, how about block this and only registered users can only edit? --Zunter (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No vandalism so far. What's your worry? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I see vandalism risk. And I dont see why any unregistered editor makes useful edit for this template. (Sorry bad english) --Zunter (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  Not done Because someone may want to translate this template. IPs are allowed to do so. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Michel.willians015

Please block Michel.willians015 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for sock pupperty/evasion of blocks via Category:Sockpuppets of MWillians + continuing to upload identical copyright violation (details at user talk) in spite of multiple warnings for all users. Gunnex (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I unblocked User:Kwangmo today, we received a valid OTRS Ticket (ticket:2015063010008898)) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As he hasn't edited since June 26th, it might be good to notify him also by email about the unblocking. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  Already done.   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Awesome. Does the ticket license restoring some of their uploads? -- Rillke(q?) 18:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: working on it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Adrianao da costa

FYI, I just blocked indef Adrianao da costa (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for continuously uploading non-free songs. Probably related to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_52#Mass_music_uploads. Regards Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Chugunkin

On July 11, 2015 mister Chugunkin was blocked without any warning by administrator A.Savin. The marked reason was vandalism.

I think there is no vandalism from mister Chugunin who wrote that OTRS permission is needed for several concrete files (4 files). I must say that one his nomination for deleting was accepted ( File:Vladimir Medinski 06120 Courcy.JPG ) and two nominations were in process.

Moreover, I think there was the violation of Wikimedia rules from administrator A.Savin. This administrator didn’t warn mister Chugunkin as it’s necessary according Wikimedia rules; he blocked mister Chugunkin immediately and forever. I suspect that it was made from political reasons because famous Russian politicians were on that photos and administrator A.Savin is from Moscow.

Please, check this case! Xenia Odnoletko. -- Ксения Однолетко (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Ксения Однолетко: I checked and Chugunkin remains blocked indefinately for having a vandalism-only account. If the user him/herself wishes to return, they can write on their own behalf at any time. According to their page on ru.wiki they speak a professional level of English so can continue their own dialog with the admins here. Incidentally, COM:AGF requires that we all put aside antagonistic statements about each others intentions and "assume good faith." Please take a minute to re-read COM:AGF and apply it in your thoughts to administrator A.Savin. Thank you for your inquiry, Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

TheusR15

Please block TheusR15 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to (re-) upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done 3 days. Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Momak od Gjorce

Please block Momak od Gjorce (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Terryyes15 sockpuppets

Some sockpuppets need blocking:

—LX (talk, contribs) 19:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@LX: Terryyes15 is not actually blocked (though Suprapubic catheter was blocked as a sock of that account). Given that the last two have not edited during overlapping periods (there were months of inactivity between) I don't think they are really blockable as socks, though I did delete the images I could directly identify as having been previously deleted. There are two left that, as far as I can tell, are 'new' to Commons (and probably need a DR). Revent (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my mistake regarding the status of the sock master. I don't see how the lack of overlap in time means that the socks are not blockable. The user is clearly abusing multiple accounts to make it harder to track disruptive behaviour. As for deletion discussion, I really don't see what there is to discuss, given that the remaining files are no different in nature than the ones already deleted, and given that it's been established repeatedly (Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-07#File:ArcSoft Image100.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suprapubic Catheter Image 105.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArcSoft Image106.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suprapubic Catheter Image 01.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suprapubic Catheter Image 03.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Catheter2) that this user's authorship claims cannot be trusted. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect what Revent was trying to convey is that, for example, as the "master" (Terryyes15) has not edited in about a year, Catheter2 is not a sock in the sense of being a second account used simultaneously/contemporaneously to continue disruption (i.e., this user has apparently discontinued use of Terryyes15 in favour of Catheter2 and is therefor adhering to one account at a time.) It looks like previous deletions were generally related to a copyright notice added to the EXIF by a trial version of webcam software (or in the case of Tom Catheter, self-requested). There's no prohibition on reuploading deleted content if the reason for deletion has been resolved, and indeed the new uploads do not have a copyright notice in the EXIF (or any EXIF). Perhaps the user finally purchased the full version of the software? The technical characteristics of the most recently uploaded images are perfectly consistent with being "selfies," if you will, taken by the aforementioned webcam. Especially in the absence of a discussion (e.g., DR) regarding the EXIF-free images, I don't yet see disruption here. Эlcobbola talk 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you for stating that in a clearer manner than I probably would have accomplished. Revent (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
As Jim repeatedly explained in the deletion discussions linked above, whether or not the ArcSoft notice is present in the metadata is irrelevant. A webcam software vendor does not hold copyright to files created with full versions or trial versions of the software, and that's not why the files were deleted. They were deleted based on the uploader's history (including several dozen deleted uploads, multiple sockpuppets and a lack of responsiveness in discussions) and the fact that the likely copyright holder of a photo taken in a medical institution is the institution, not the subject. None of that has changed. The remaining files do not differ in any significant way from the ones already deleted. Either all previous deletions should be reversed after an undeletion discussion, or the remaining ones should be deleted as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@LX: The remaining files would quite possibly also be deleted after a deletion discussion. They do not seem to, however, fall under any of the specific criteria for speedy deletion (they are similar images, but as far as I can tell not identical to any previously deleted by consensus), and so IMO need to be nominated by the normal process. Revent (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
And people wonder why all our backlogs keep growing. Entering the Soviet Union from western Europe during the cold war involved less bureaucracy. But here we go: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Catheter2.
I still don't see why a user that's consumed this much time and resources and contributed nothing of value should be granted the privilege of choosing between three different accounts to log into. If the other ones are truly abandoned in favour of the new one, there should be no harm in blocking them indefinitely and redirecting them to the most recent one. And the most recent one should be blocked for ignoring previous warnings not to recreate previously deleted content. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Jim certainly didn't seem to think the metadata was irrelevant at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suprapubic Catheter Image 02.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArcSoft Image103.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArcSoft Image100.jpg, etc. Yes, the metadata argument is a fallacy, yet it bizarrely prevailed - contributing to "the uploader's history" along with images that were deleted per self-request. Accordingly, rationales of "several dozen deleted uploads" are meaningless and circular as they ignore the reasons for the deletions. Further, an undeletion request failed with the rational "Questionable copyright status, seeing how ArcSoft is named as the copyright holder in the EXIF. Since we have no tangible evidence indicating otherwise, COM:PCP applies." (emphasis added) To say the issue with these images is not the metadata is disingenuous. That this user is taking images of himself with a webcam (a device essentially designed for "selfies") is far more likely than a medical institution using a webcam (as opposed to a more robust camera) with trial (!) software. Эlcobbola talk 19:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved here from User talk:LX. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started, as this makes conversations easier to follow. I am watching this page, so I will see responses made here.

Just wanted to leave you a personal note... I have no doubt, at all, that you are correct... it's quite obviously the same person, etc. The issue just seems to be (because of the time elapsed, and because the images are not 'identical') to be outside the scope of what administrators are allowed to do in a 'speedy' manner.... we can only really do a 'precautionary principle' deletion as a speedy in the case of a contributor who has uploaded large number of blatant copyright violations, under the assumption that the rest are also blatant copyvios that are simply either harder to track down, or so likely that it's not worth the effort (the last 3 or 4 from a flickerwashing case, as an example), and even then (personally) as an admin I'll do a bulk DR for the remaining ones, and let some other admin close it as a speedy to get a second opinion on the ones I have not 'proved'. Revent (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Forget about it. Not wasting any more time on this. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

{{Resolved}} Surely File:Untitled.png and File:Untitled.PNG should be protected; both have been repeatedly created and deleted, since they're a common (and completely non-descriptive) filename. Untitled.jpg and Untitled.JPG are both protected redirects to File:Name.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done 1 already done by Taivo, I protected the second one plus Untitled.svg. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! But could you also create them as redirects to Name.jpg? I really should have thought to say that earlier; sorry to make more work for you. It's often annoying to have to have other people do the work when I'm used to doing it myself :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

JuliaCriativa + Diva1410

Please block JuliaCriativa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Diva1410 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  as part of the sock farm Category:Sockpuppets of Sigajefinho for evasion of block of Sigajefinho (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + continuing to upload similar copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings for all related accounts. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thx! Please block also sock Vih2725 (talk · contributions · Statistics), reuploading identical files, previously deleted from above (and more) users. Gunnex (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  Done taken care off. Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oldswitch2015

Please block User:Oldswitch2015, who is a stalker of User:Derzno. It will not help much, he will reappear soon with another account, see User:Alterschalter2015. He has been banned infinitely on German Wikipedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung&oldid=117164370#Benutzer:Alterschalter.2FBenutzer:Alterlumpers_.28erl..2 Thanks, --Blech (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Propityenvie

Please block Propityenvie (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for evasion of blocks / being part of sock farm Category:Sockpuppets of Jvolkblum + uploading similar copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Details at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Propityenvie. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done blocked him. Natuur12 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thx a lot. Would you (or someone else) check/block also Myriad2015 (talk · contributions · Statistics) (= obvious sock)? Gunnex (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Deleted the files and blocked the account. Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Soccerprevvolutio + Soccerprevvolution

Please block Soccerprevvolutio (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + sock Soccerprevvolution (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings + falsification of Flickrreview (File:Arena de Corinthians.JPG) + removal of (speedy) delete tags (File:Logo Cub Veracruz.png + File:Tigres UANL Logotipo.png + etc.) + reuploads of previously DR deleted files (check for details: User talk:Soccerprevvolution) + falsification of enwiki transfers (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo-Pumas.png). Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Both undef. LR falsification is unacceptable. Yann (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Demintova

Demintova is a sockpuppet of User:Decentnil (again & again). Report on en at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Decentnil. Evidence on commons - upload of File:Decent Nil Villa Road.jpg, File:Decent Nil's Villa.jpg. Now seems to be plugging earpixels.com, File:EarPixels Screenshot.png, & File:EarPixels Logo Official.png. Bazj (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Denniss (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat

This was a justified block. Also I support adding "personal attacks" as blocking reason. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo Commons

Please block Geraldo Commons (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thx! Gunnex (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nurio Adriano

Please block Nurio Adriano (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thx, but see also comment below. Gunnex (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
If somebody wants to block him indefinitely, then I am not against. Taivo (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Movicel12

Please block Movicel12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings and a previous block. Thanks.

Btw, as Geraldo Commons + Nurio Adriano (see above) part of the (how would I saw?) "Angola Facebook case" involving multiple users uploading unfree (music) files. All these user are obviously copyvio-only accounts. See e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Miguelmito + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Geraldo Commons + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wizard gang + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MorenoMoreno2015 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Quissonde Jai G + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lucombostart + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AdilsOon1998 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cachala59 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Movicel12 + etc. Gunnex (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  blocked indef. Doesn't (want to?) learn. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

NG commons

Please block NG commons (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings and a previous block. "Angola Facebook case", copyvio-only-account, see below. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  Blocked indef. Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Parnaiba

Related:

Please block Parnaiba (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  as part of the sock farm Category:Sockpuppets of Sigajefinho for evasion of block of Sigajefinho (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + continuing to reupload identical but previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings for all related accounts. Gunnex (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Marcelino P.J

Please block Marcelino P.J (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , part of the "Angola Facebook case", see also above COM:AN/B#Geraldo Commons + COM:AN/B#Nurio Adriano + COM:AN/B#Movicel12 + COM:AN/B#NG commons. Gunnex (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jyotirmoy09

Please block Jyotirmoy09 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for repeat copyvios after warning. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done 3 days. Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeremycfranco

Please block Jeremycfranco (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done One week to go to the beach. Yann (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible socks

  Resolved

Uploading images of same person, User:Didofficiel and User:Didoffciel culled from web. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  Ducktest positive Blocked, last warning older than last (c)vio upload. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Thehack771

Please block Thehack771 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for repeat copyvios after warnings. Would recommend speedy delete of the two live uploads.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I gave a final warning. Files deleted. Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Chath

  Resolved

Chath (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Goes on uploading copyvios after multiple warnings. Sealle (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done Tagged uploads deleted, Uploader has a 3 month long Wiki break. Next time indef. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ceochap

Related:

Please block Ceochap (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  as part of the sock farm Category:Sockpuppets of Sigajefinho for evasion of block of Sigajefinho (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + continuing to reupload identical but previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings for all related accounts. Gunnex (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Sockpuppets of Messina

Sofle.H37 (talk · contribs) --Wertsoiret (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked --Denniss (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tallei2.3 (talk · contribs) --Wertsoiret (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tamawashi

This user has a lot of sockpuppets (FreightXPress, TimurKirov, ...) which make severe disruption. The account should be blocked and autopatrolled flag should be removed.--GZWDer (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  Not done No edits for 1 year. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mikhail1990

Please revoke the talk page privileges of indefinitely blocked Mikhail1990 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , as he does not seem interested in using them for legitimate purposes, such as requesting unblocking, but only seems interested in using them to distort other people's comments. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 10:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

GabyEstrella

Please block GabyEstrella (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and two previous blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach

Edit war on File:Bach.jpg. --Vanzanten (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Azar73

Please block Azar73 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done blocked for 2 weeks, uploads deleted --Didym (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Luis antonio covarrubias juarez

Please block Luis antonio covarrubias juarez (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 08:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  3 months Commonsbreak to read a little about scope, copyright, and licensing. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Adolfo Paulino

Please block Adolfo Paulino (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  = copyvio-only account, Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios, updated by me). Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)   Full indef. block --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ramon.Cava

Please block Ramon.Cava (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations (including reuploads) in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

   3 months Commonsbreak. I think there might be a communications problem. Might be ignorance. We will see in 3 months. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Russavia sock

Russavia (new and improved) (talk · contribs), noticed while I was going through the file move requests. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 23:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dblama sockpuppet Rawmeat771

Please block Rawmeat771 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , yet another sockpuppet of Dblama. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 12#Dblama sockpuppets JasonStack43, SadiU7 and Durlavkt7 and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rom Bahadur Thapa.JPG for background. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn. It seems I spoke too soon on this one. According to English Wikipedia's sockpuppet investigation, this account is unrelated to the Dblama sock farm. My apologies. My assumption was based on the fact that the account's sole upload concerned the same topic and had the same type of copyright problem as Dblama's uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Dblama sockpuppet Birendra700

Birendra700 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  is a confirmed sockpuppet of Dblama. Please block. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 10:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

David Marcos

Please block David Marcos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  = copyvio-only account, Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios, updated by me). Gunnex (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Blocked indefinitely by Hedwig in Washington. WJBscribe (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ghiurutan

For what it is worth: I blocked Ghiurutan (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for 2 weeks (only) for harassment done on my talk page. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Meta from EChastain

Greetings all, There is currently a discussion on Meta on Commons as globally banned when I'm not that was started by EChastain about their block here. They appear to have been blocked by INeverCry as a sockpuppet of Matisse. In the discussion at Meta they are contending they are not Matisse, that they are not globally banned and that INeverCry was desysopped since the block. Given the circumstances with INeverCry, would someone be willing to double check the account in the chance that this might have been in error? I don't know the history of Matisse so if the decision was based on some behavioral evidence I wouldn't be able to tell. It could very well be a valid block but it seemed like a reasonable request to verify it given the circumstances, so I thought I would drop a note here. Reguyla (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

We better wait for an input from a checkuser before proceeding with an unblock. Also Billinghurst.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
As noted on User talk:EChastain#Rationalobserver, checkusers have already confirmed that EChastain is a sockpuppet of Mattisse. See en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse#Since 2013 and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments 8. Since accounts are unified across all Wikimedia projects, it is not possible for the accounts to be sockpuppets on English Wikipedia but unrelated on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I wonder, if the Matisse account has been blocked for so long, how are we sure that this is him since the checkuser data is only resident for about 3 months but its not something I am really that concerned about. Reguyla (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Another reason a check here and now is pointless. But the English Wikipedia checkusers had a long list of previously confirmed sockpuppets to link it back to the original account. That and the mountain of behavioural evidence. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Just for FYI though, this discussion confirms my theory that it was not a decision made by the check user tool but by the got feelings of an individual based on procedural grounds. I wonder if we were to analyse the edtit histories of 2 Arbitrators if we would not find that they had significant "behavioral" similarities as well. As such, IMO, the inclusion of the term "checkuser" is not a fair or even accurate description to the action.Reguyla (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion establishes behavioural similarities, but "The account is technically very likely to [be a sockpuppet of] past accounts" in the conclusion is checkuser speak meaning there are also similarities in aspects such as IP ranges and user agents. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I looked and I just don't see the similarities they are seeing. It could be true though, I don't really know. I also know that I don't see anything in the edit history of the account here to make me think they aren't doing positive edits. I for one don't really care if they are blocked on ENWP, so am I so I am sensitive to the perseptions of being wrongfully blocked. As long as they are doing positive contributions here I am personally inclined to not care about statements of "socking cause the English Wikipedia says so". Reguyla (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The information available to checkusers is not public, so you wouldn't see that. The user evaded a block here on Commons for edit warring. That's not particularly positive. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

LX Could you point out that block you are referring too about the evasion? Because when I look at the block log here all I see is 2 entries, one for the indef from INC and the Unblock of the talk page by Billinghusrt. Your also right, I cannot see checkuser information but this isn't that anyway. It was, by their own admittance a decision based on "Behavioral evidence". Which frankly is an utterly bullshit justification and always has been. These decisions aren't made by trained data analysts, it is, by every possible interpretation, a guess. Here are the facts I do have:

  • I see an account that dates back to October 2014.
  • I see no obvious evidence of drama or abuse.
  • I see an account that has done a couple thousand edits in a 6 month period that improved this project.
  • The checkuser tool only holds about 90 days of info, and wasn't useful in this "decision"
  • This block is an assumption and extension of a decision made on ENWP. We are not ENWP and their decisions need not automatically extend here. And I am thankful for that or else I would not be able to contribute here either

Honestly, even if it is Matisse, Matisse was blocked in 2011, are we going to continue a vendetta indefinitely and accuse anyone who acts or appears to follow the same trends as being them? I sure hope not. Because then we are no different than the culture of mistrust and abuse that's developed on the English Wikipedia and I don't see that here and it wouldn't be a positive change for this project. We need to decide if we are here to develop a collaborative environment and build content or make unprovable guesses and accusations. Now if this is Matisse, and I am not saying it is or isn't either way, they are contributing positively I suggest we extend that olive branch and let it go unless perhaps some actual justifiable proof presents itself that it truly is who they are accusing them to be. More evidence than just the "they edited the same articles" variety. Reguyla (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The block evasion is explained on the user talk page. The sockpuppet investigation conclusion was not just based on behavioural evidence but also on technical evidence. Since you seem to be playing the en:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, I think I'm done here. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 15:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fine and en:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT works both ways. Its also interesting that you yet again refer to an essay on ENWP that is not a policy and has no direct association to this site. You also seem to be under the delusion that the Checkuser tool and the operators of it are infallible and I can tell you from personal experience that both are very much fallible. I also find it interesting that they were blamed as being Sue Rangell first here and when that didn't prove to be true they accused them as being Mattise several months later, using a lot of the same justifications and weak arguments. So personally I am skeptical of it really being Matisse. Maybe they could try WillieOnWheels next? Reguyla (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no vendetta. The problem is that the CU on enwiki established strong connection between Mattisse and other accounts. That Mattisse didn't edit since 2011 is no argument, the w:en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse#Since_2013. No, we are not enwiki. BUT we can use what enwiki established and make our own decisions. No need to CU the same sock on different projects over and over. Enwiki did that for use. We are understaffed as is and I think we shouldn't waste a lot of time with socks. Evidence seems clear,   per Ducktest. If the user want's to establish is so called innocence, he may request a CU. Speedyclose. We don't have time for his BS, pardon my French. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess I should be glad that INeverCry didn't block me as well given that I am also blocked on ENWP as a sockmaster and eventhough the ENWP community voted a year ago to unblock me as of February 2015 its still not done because those admins and Checusers you seem to think are so good at their jobs refuse to unblock my account. So you will excuse me if I consider them less than honorable and question their motives. I would also add that I hate the Ducktest statements because they are by ever definition an assumption of guilt and are often done without evidence. Its almost always a matter of who accuses whom first and which one has the ability to block the other wins. Reguyla (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This conversation represents how broken Commons is wrt dealing with long-term troublesome accounts. The opening remarks openly admit "I don't know the history of Matisse" and the agenda is made clear by the closing remarks: that because I (Reguyla) believe I'm unfairly blocked on WP and believe I'm an asset here, we should assume the same is true for other users blocked on WP. Commons needs to grow up from treating a WP block as a badge of honour, rather than the canary in the mine. For all the imperfections of WP's blocking procedures and mechanisms, comparing Commons to WP is like comparing the Wild West with a city. Sure, judges and juries make mistakes and can be biased, but what we have here is just a handful of sheriffs with badges. Even the most socially dysfunctional person can upload a few free images they find on the 'net and appear to be making "positive contributions". We need to stop thinking of users as an additional stream of free images, or an additional pair of hands to categorise our repository, but as human beings with all the positive and negative things that come with that. Matisse was a royal PITA and has a long history of creating new accounts where they claim "I'm not Matisse". If they've been blocked (again) from editing here, that's a good thing for our community. Consider Magog the Ogre's recent remarks: he blocked himself because he didn't think the community was capable of achieving that. That says a lot about how dysfunctional Commons is in that area. Users who simply transfer other people's images to Commons are by definition replaceable. Let's keep the bad 'uns out, no matter how big their upload log is. -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Colin: Commons is not broken at all. Controversial users are on all wikis (enwiki, dewiki, ...). It is not mellow how you talk about commons. I am disappointed :-(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree there are controversial users on all WMF projects. Some projects have systems for dealing with them that are community-based, accountable, consider evidence, ask for input from all sides, and have a large enough active community to make them operate. Commons doesn't have that. Don't try to censor criticism of Commons' failings. It is only when we are honest about our failings that we can improve. I'd be more interested if you could give examples of where the Commons community successfully banned a long term problem user (who otherwise contributed free images, or categorised, or did some other "positive contribution"). Is there any evidence that Commons is functional in this regard? -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
First Colin I want to say your hyperbolic statements are endemic of the environment of ENWP, not commons and if you think commons is broken than surely you must also believe ENWP, the project you are unsuccessfully trying to defend here, is also broken. Because I can tell you from editing here the last few months that commons is far, far better than ENWP. This is a much more pleasant editing environement, its much more academic and collaborative and its generally more enjoyable. I wish I had started editing here sooner. Same goes for Wikidata. Also, just to clarify I do not believe I am a benefit here I am certain of it just like I was a benefit on ENWP before I was banned to get me to stop criticizing abusive admins. The tactic used in my ban was similar to the one used on EChastain. Continue to submit ban requests or accusations until one eventually sticks. They accused them of being Sue Rangell and when that didn't pan out they accused them of being Matisse and it was the same admin, MikeV that closed both. So yes I am sensitive to that tactic being used on others that are positive editors. Your also right that comparing the Wild West with a city applies but personally I think that Commons is the city in this case and ENWP is the Wild West where the winner of a discussion is generally the one with the ability to block the other (the sheriff's). I also want to clarify that in my community unban discussion a lot of the people, including admins and former arbs felt my ban wasn't done according to policy but yet I am still blocked 5 months after the community decided to unblock me because admins on the site refuse to carry out the communities decision. But I am not the point of the discussion here EChastain is.
Back to the case in point though. Matisse may have been a PITA 4 years ago. EChastain does not appear to be and appears to be a positive asset. I have said before and I'll say it again here. I don't care what their history was. It could be Matisse, I don't really know or care. They are a net positive now and the accusations and evidence being used against them is weak, circumstantial and not based on anything remotely provable. I also don't think we should hold grudges for years. At some point we need to put the project first and judge editors on their merits, not manifest justification's to block them with accusations that have no evidence outside gut feelings. Things that ENWP is well known for I might add. I would also add that we are not talking about a user with a handful of images and edits. I wouldn't waste my time if it was. This editor has amassed several thousand in a short time. You say we need to stop thinking of editors as a source of free images but is that not what we are here for? Are we here to grow admins, follow the decisions of ENWP or to add and improve image content? We also need to stop thinking of editors as an endless, renewable and expendable resource. That's another trait on ENWP that is a fallacy and one that I hope this project does not get into the habit of following. I would end with one last statement about the difference between commons an ENWP. Just because we don't have throngs of admins and editors dedicated to finding reasons to block and ban editors from the site to protect their POV or pet projects, doesn't reflect a pattern of non success for this project. It shows me we are more interested in improving the project than chasing editors around. Reguyla (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not defending any project. All human systems have weaknesses. Nor did I use "believe" to cast doubt on your usefulness, merely to highlight that it is your claim rather than a hard fact. Your opinion of WP is quite clearly coloured. One example is your use of the word "grudge". Another is your claim "throngs of admins and editors dedicated to finding reasons to block and ban editors from the site to protect their POV or pet projects". Users are not an endless resource, which is why it is important to protect the community from users who bully, harass, intimidate or have other pathological social issues. We are not just here to supply free images. If that were so, the site would consist only of an upload button and he ability to edit one's contributions. But instead it has talk pages, quality forums, competitions and the ability to edit one-another's contributions or the contributions of complete strangers who've had their work uploaded here. Those things all require a functional community who collaborate and who are also able to resolve disputes and ultimately get rid of the bad apples and keep them out. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Well of course my opinion is "coloured", I have seen and been the victim of the abuse directly myself. You are also dwelling on a SPI result that is clearly heavily opinionated and jaded, has a complete lack of evidence, is full of assumptions and conjecture and was the 2nd time this editor was attempted to be brought before SPI with the same admin closing it. Anyone who looks at those 2 cases and the discussions can clearly see that there was zero proof of anything other than this person edited the same topics. What is easily provable is the helpful edits they have done here and he glorious absence of drama wiht the exception of one interaction which INC talked to them about which when I look at it, doesn't really seem to be a problem. Again even if this is Matisse returned so what, its been 4 years and they are contributing positively. When they stop making positive contributions then lets block them ok. Lets not find excuses to block editors who are improving the projects. And until the ENWP admins start following policy and consensus like the enforce on the editors I don't really care to hear about how ENWP is a "functional community who collaborates" because in reality nothing is farther from the truth. Reguyla (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think continuing this conversation would be productive as your comments don't appear to me to be a rational and uncoloured interpretation of the events. Your argument that this editor should be unblocked is completely based on prejudice. It hasn't "been 4 years". They have continued to edit under various socks, continued to be a problem wrt categorisation and edit warring on Commons. Mattisse is a classic example of a user with serious social interaction problems, who appears to be useful/positive for a while but then turns nasty when confronted or opposed. We need such users like a hole in the head. -- Colin (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Your right because you seem to be focused on the end result of a biased case on ENWP rather than facts that are staring everyone in the face. No one has proven this is even Matisse. The SPI made comments like "Could be", "Seems to be" and "Appears to be" but none with statements like "confirmed to be", "proven" or "is". It was based on Behavioral evidence and wasn't even a checkuser block as it says it is because the checkuser tool wouldn't work in this case. How many editors behave the same? Or Admins? Lots. So those are just justifications used to try to validate something that cannot be proven to get rid of an editor that doesn't share their same view. And lets not forget that the editor that started those SPI's. Lightbreather, has been banned by the Arbcom. And as you stated, Matisse, if this is even them, have created account after account and attempts to prevent them from editing have failed, over and over and over. Again, I am not saying it is or isn't, but if it is, might this not be an opportunity to assume good faith and just maybe put an end to it. Maybe if this is them and we simply let them edit positively and constructively they will stop. And I want to again clarify I don't know if it is even them. Certainly this editor is doing good edits and that to be is more important than speculation and unproven accusations. You are quick to argue against them being unblocked Colin, but you have yet to provide any links, evidence or justification why they should be blocked. Edits are not getting done that could be if this editor was editing as could be true of all of us rather than these walls of text. That is what I do and have always cared about on this project and ENWP. Reguyla (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, since you brought up your "unfair" ban on WP, I had a look. Well that was an hour of my life I'd like back. Add all the other users who contributed to your block reviews and wrote tens of thousands of words about whether you should be unblocked. I really don't think any one person should cause that much hassle to so many volunteers for such a prolonged period of time. You really don't make it easy for people to forgive you and move on. I'd say the one person with a "grudge" that needs to be cast aside is you. How about you just try to make yourself useful on this site rather than once again get wound up in trying to play politics and playing games to let a long-term-abuse user like Mattisse play their games here. You aren't any good at it. Use what talents you have for something more productive. Users who sock, like Mattisse, deceive and hurt their fellow users at a fundamental level: about who they are and what to expect from them. In AGF the key word is "assume", not "be a complete naive fool". -- Colin (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I can certainly see how you would feel that way about my block. A lot of time went in to it by a lot of people on both sides and your right it was all a waste of time in the end. The community decided I should be unblocked and the admins refuse to do it because I was critical of them. As for me not being good at politics, I accept that as well. I am not a politician, I am an editor and as I see it the politicians on these sites who are here to debate instead of edit are a major factor in why people don't like to edit these days. In the end thought both myself and this EChastain individual are just editors so really we have no rights on this or any of the WMF sites. Any admin can find a reason to block us and we have 2 choices. Give in and leave or create a new account and continue editing. If those edits are positive then the site wins. If they are not the account will and should be blocked again regardless of whether its a sock or not. Do you really think that there are no active editors at ENWP that have returned from a previously banned account? I bet there are at least a couple admins in fact. In fact a couple admins have admitted to socking (and they are still admins). So if you have a problem with "my politics" and not the admins who sock, abuse the tools, make personal attacks, ec. then I say the problem is yours not mine Again, I am only looking at this editor from the standpoint of their edits here which as far as I can tell are positive. And you still have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary...because there is none. Reguyla (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Colin: User:FreightXPress is a recent example of a user who was blocked based on their behavior across all Wikimedia projects, including the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ymblanter, thanks. I may be missing something but it doesn't look like they were editing for more than about one month on Commons, and never uploaded anything. So that isn't quite what I was looking for. -- Colin (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have not seen local checkuser data for EChastain, though I have seen other checkuser data for this user. I have seen Mattisse's data from a few years ago. There is similarities of the two users, though IMO it is not enough on its own, to confirm the same person. So, one would need to look at this data over a period of time, and have a good knowledge of the users editing to make any confirmatory or dismissing comment/judgment.

    All that said, I want to see evidence of abuse for a block, and I cannot see that it has been suitably documented that either Mattise or EChastain has been undertaking abuse at this wiki, let alone that the block is requiring an infinite block. People can fuck up, and they can also redeem themself and change. So I would much prefer that we deem whether EChastain needs a block based on their work on this wiki, with an eye to what previous issues may have been rather than the driver of a decision, and the potential that they have to positive contributions. If the user is a problem they can be blocked when they become a problem, not because they maybe one at some point in the future.

    It is my opinion that enWP chases people and turns them into bigger PITA than they would have been on their own. [Outside Commons comment. I saw Mattisse's work at enWS after being banned from enWP, and they caused no issue, and did much in the way of valuable transcription for works of an author and the works of County Devon. So I know that the user Mattisse can be a valuable contributor and I would welcome them back to enWS if they were still around.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

    • If Mattise was honest with the community about their identity, rather than socking to evade bans, then there's scope for redemption. But this continued socking to evade bans should be treated harshly by the community on all projects. It's fraud and dishonest to you and me. An analogy (which isn't perfect): but the excuses here are like someone who was in prison for a serious crime escaping, and living under a false identity, and when they get found out they claim "but I haven't murdered anyone/stolen/defrauded/ect recently, I'm just serving burgers and minding my own business". It doesn't work like that. I appreciate some people don't handle their ban very well, but that, frankly, is their problem. They need to find a different hobby. There will always be users who appear productive and useful for a while and then become unpleasant to the degree the community expels them. We don't just let them back because they've successfully socked and uploaded some images without being unpleasant yet. Being accepted again by the community starts with being honest to that community. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • First, if you think it would be better for them to admit they are Matisse, if they even are which I am not even sure about, you are gravelly mistaken. That would be a lightning rod for drama. I can't speak for everyone and you clearly don't agree but personally, I would rather they just keep it to themselves and continue to be an asset. If they admitted it was them it would cause an uproar in ENWP and here and even if we agreed to unblock them as Matisse they would be followed around and hounded and every edit scrutinized looking for a reason to block them with shouts of I told you so. Secondly you are still holding onto the assumption its even them which still hasn't been proven and your hyperbole about murder and theft are hyperbolic and silly. Its a website man, not a felony or a violation of Christian values according to the ten commandments. I'll be honest with you, you are clearly stuck with the mentality that the people who decide these bans and blocks are infallible and once its decided it must be true. I can tell you they are not infallible, that the system can be and has been manipulated and it costs the projects good editors. I can speak on that from personal, ongoing experience. And speaking from that experience there have been positives. I have learned about IRC and other projects and met other editors who edit here and on other wiki's that had similar experiences as I did at ENWP. So its not a me or them problem problem, its an ENWP culture of abuse problem. Reguyla (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      @Colin: If there was clarity around Mattisse's block that may be okay, however, there isn't. It is a wholesome mess. There was no community decision made here, just one made by an admin with an approach that tended towards chaotic. I want to work with people who wish to edit productively, and for the betterment of open access, and in a collaborative workspace. In all my xwiki work I see screw-ups of people and situations, and I see people who stuff-up probably know it, but the individual hubris and that collective hubris of the community turns the situation into an unfortunate pissing competition. We should allow for a cool-off period, and look to provide a supportive environment for good editing. We all have our flaws, and each of us is less than perfect, so we admit it, move on, find our niche, edit well and enjoy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • We all have flaws. And we should have means for redemption. But letting people in simply because they are a clever sockpuppet isn't the answer. I don't think the bans and blocks on WP are "infallible" but they are the outcome of a community process that involves a heck of a lot of input and volunteer time -- a process that is completely absent on Commons. Reguyla thinks we should ignore that and treat WP blocks/bans with suspicion -- which is entirely coloured by their beliefs and experience. Reguyla suggests that if Mattisse was honest with the community, it would be a "lightning rod for drama". Well, frankly, we don't need users who are a "lightning rod for drama". No matter how much of a DIVA they are, nobody is that precious. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm not suggesting it, its a fact that it would turn into a big show. You are right though and I agree completely, we don't need that much of a lightning rod for drama which is exactly why if it is Matisse its better we don't know and let this person edit. This has already become far bigger of a deal than it should be. You still have yet to provide any proof its Matisse, no links, no comparisons and anyone who reads the 2 SPI's on ENWP can clearly see bias, speculation, insinuation and a glorious absence or anything resembling proof. So I say again, if you have some proof please present it, otherwise I think we have spent enough time on this subject. Reguyla (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Holy cow! @Billinghurst: or any other sysop: Please unblock this user. We are binding more time here than it is really worth. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't unblock where I have expressed an opinion. I have asked the checkusers to review the case, and CU if necessary, and work out which way to go. That is why they earn the big bucks. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes they were blocked for that and I agree with that block. What I do not agree with is indefinitely banning an editor with over 50, 000 edits on this project for gut feelings and accusations with no proof. Even the checkusers who reviewed it both here and on ENWP says there is no way a checkuser can verify this. Even at ENWP they said the same thing and in fact of the 3 people who made a comment there 2 of them stated that even if it were Matisse, which still has yet to be proven, its a waste of time and effort to keep chasing them around when they can and have, if this is them, proven they can create a new account any time they want. Good edits are good edits and I am tired of spending effort on looking for reasons to block editors who are doing good edits. People keep saying that if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck it must be a duck. You know what a duck tastes like and looks like when its cooked? Chicken! Reguyla (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
They might not deserve an indef for their actions to this point, but I predict that, if unblocked, they will continue these creepy stalking behaviors for which they were blocked. If not against me, against someone else. The EChastian account on Wikipedia was clearly for disruption and hounding only. They literally had the exact same experience at every single talk page they went to (I looked), where they bothered, disrupted, and generally wasted everybody's time with ridiculous suggestions and bad-faith insults and/or accusations. They've been repeating baseless socking accusations against me for more than 6 months now. This is obviously not a person who drops a grudge and moves on. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You might be right, if unblocked they might start again or they might start editing again or some combination of the two. Same could be said of anyone who is blocked. I would also note that the toxic editing environment of the English Wikipedia has a history of developing a perpetual cycle of abuse. The admins/community run around accusing each other and finding reasons to ban each other and often times it turns a good editor into a PITA. I am no exception to that statement. Oftentimes that PITA gives up even doing positive edits and turns into a vandal and treats the project like a game and they just start fucking with people. Again though I go back to the statements I have made before. No evidence has been provided, no links, only conjecture, speculation and guesses. I don't like guesses and as many know I am also very sensitive to editors getting screwed over. Banning someone who has done 50, 000 edits on this project with no proof other than guesses on ENWP is just plain stupid. If I spent the time I could devise a far more convincing argument that 2 admins on ENWP whom are married are actually sockpuppets of each other because they edit from the same IP, sometimes the same computer, comment in the same discussions and edit in the same areas. Sound absurd? So is banning someone when everyone agrees there is no evidence other than guesses. Reguyla (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • FTR, Mike V said at SPI: The account is technically very Likely to past accounts. The behavioral evidence is compelling as well. I have blocked and tagged the account. Mike V • Talk 00:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC). Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, as I just said on the users talk page technically very likely does not mean the checkuser data was used, which is technical. In this case they said the CU data wasn't useful and based on some circumstantial evidence blocked them indef as a sock of a banned editor. Now, I may not be the most popular guy around, but I have a big problem with an editor getting accused as someone else, then indef blocked as the sock of another blocked account with nothing but guesses and conjecture. I would also add you are also missing all the comments on that SPI that it would be better to let them edit than keep chasing them. But anyway, enough time has been wasted on this and I have better things to do than beat a dead horse. Its obvious that I am the only one that has a problem banning a positive contributor with over 50, 000 edits based on guesswork and accusations on another project so I am going to drop it. I had hoped this project was better than ENWP but I guess I was wrong and whats worse is this project seems perfectly ok with taking a half assed decision on ENWP and applying it here as well. And we wonder why we don't have enough editors around here to do the work. Its dumb ass decisions like this and banning an editor for something that should have been done as a short block. You all need to seriously do some self reflection and decide on whether you are here to actually build up this project or just build your block logs. I'm going to go back to editing at Wikia and Wikidata for a while. I need to take a brake from this project and dumb decisions like this. Reguyla (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure you're reading that correctly. Mike V said, "The account is technically very Likely to past accounts". That's not a negative CU report, that's a likely in terms of technicality, which is based on stored CU data. He also said the account was behaviorally similar, which is different from technical data, meaning the accounts are both "technically" and "behaviorally" similar. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Likely means likely, it means...I don't know but it might be and I cannot prove it either way. In cases like that, where they have no proof, why do they block? Because AGF does not exist on ENWP and any admin can ignore it. I had hoped this project was different, I guess I was wrong and like I said this represents a net loss to the project. I hate to say it like this but you have about 240 edits here, they have over 50, 000 so arguments that they are following you are hard for me to take seriously and I think the 50, 000 edits will be a bigger loss than your 240. Not to say your edits aren't positive or important, but its about 49, 750 less than the one we banned because of accusations, without evidence and based on a new checkusers gut feeling. Its a really disappointing turn of events for the project and like I said already. I am going to take a break from here for a while. There are other projects that need editors and aren't looking for reasons to ban them. They ban them for a reason when there is proof, not guesswork and assumptions. Reguyla (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Reguyla, like I said elsewhere, no disruptive accounts should be allowed here (or elsewhere for that matters), whatever the number of edits. Any account which main purpose is to create issues should be blocked, even if he has done one million edits. That should be clear. Yann (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
          • (Edit conflict) Mike V said "very likely", and I think it's strange that you boil all this down to "choose RO or EChastian, take a pick", because that's exactly what EChastain said: ([2]). Rationalobserver (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Yann No one has yet to prove that the EChastain account is disruptive in anyway and there is absolutely nothing in this editors history that warrants more than a couple day block. No one has even proven with a reliable amount of credibility its a sock account of Matisse, which is the justification why it was banned on ENWP. I have asked repeatedly for people to provide links or proof and all anyone wants to do is argue symantics, point to an arbitrary discussion on another project and attempt to derail the discussion with nonsense. You cannot provide proof to justify a ban because there is none, not on ENWP and not here. In fact what I see is an editor that did a lot of positive content work and although they might have warranted a short block (I can see both sides of that argument) they do not warrant an indefinite ban based on accusations and without proof. Its absurd that we are even still talking about this. We shouldn't be in the habit of banning people without evidence and the fact that this ban was implemented without any justification reflects how far these projects have devolved. So I say again, if you think the account is disruptive then prove it or we need to unblock the account and stop wasting time with this pointless discussion and get back to editing. Reguyla (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Rationalobserver Again on the MikeV discussion likely doesn't mean its true, it means I don't know and it could be. We should not be in the habit of blocking people with it could be justifications. In cases like that it should be an unblock and at worst keep an eye on the account. I am also not saying choose you or them, please stop putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that the notion an editor with 50, 000 edits is "following" another with less than 250 is silly and without merit. Personally I would rather you were both editing because editors are what the project needs. Reguyla (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
              • They made those edits to say "hey, I'm still around, and I'll continue to be a presence in your editing". It's creepy, and it's hounding/stalking. When confronted they acted as if the project should choose one or the other of us, because they refuse to avoid me: ([3]). If they had just said, "okay, I'll avoid RO" they would never have been blocked, but their attitude is quite telling about their motivations. They claimed to have edited those categories before, but they didn't notice that I had created one of them quite recently, so they obviously never edited it before. Anyway, I'm going to disengage from this now, as I've already wasted far too much of my time on this. I say keep them blocked as the wrong kind of person for a collaborative project, but if unblocked we will absolutely be back here in time, as they obviously cannot help themselves from harassing and hounding people. Rationalobserver (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
                • Really? Someone did 50, 000 edits just to say I'm still here? I'm sorry but I don't by that at all. Its pretty obvious you are exaggerating your and their interactions here and its unfortunate that other members of the community don't have the good sense to see through that. As I said before I would like to see you both editing and I am certain if EChastain were unblocked and did something again they would be reblocked as appropriate. This argument of if they were blocked once they will be blocked again is silly and unrealistic. I have edited some of the same categories as you did too? Am I following you as well? Reguyla (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for any delay in a response. Just to make everything clear, when I made the block I was very confident with my findings. The technical data was nearly the exact same thing, save for one understandably different component. To boot, the behavioral evidence appeared quite strong. I discussed my findings on the checkuser mailing list and my conclusion was endorsed by Risker and Euryalus. I strongly stand by the block that was made. Mike V • Talk 23:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have absolutely no doubt you think its correct or you wouldn't have done it in the first place and as I have stated in multiple comments I admit its possible you may be right. It is also possible however that you are wrong and I base that on multiple things. First, that user was already accused of being a sock of Sue Rangell a couple months prior and you closed that as no proof. So then they were again accused as another editor that was banned and this time, some how, it was confirmed. The problem I have is this. If the checkuser data showed they were Matisse then that would have come up in the first accusation but it didn't. Because there was no proof. So that tells me that the decision was based an the "assumptions" and "experience" of the checkusers "gut", which has been proven wrong a few times in the past I might add. Another problem I have is that this user was a positive editor here so although ENWP is welcome to do as they wish, that decision need not extend here and I have an enormous problem banning positive contributors on accusations with little to no actual proof. Even after this entire discussion not one person has presented a link or evidence showing why this individual is Matisse and that they should be banned here on this project. I again, have a problem with that because behavioral evidence alone isn't convincing. If I compare the behavior of Risker with say, you, I am very likely to find a strong behavioral link and patterns. With all that said, at this point its obvious that this project has no interest in unblocking EChastain and is fine with accepting the ENWP ban through reciprocity. I had hoped that Commons was better than that but I guess I was wrong. Its not the first time I have made the assumption that people are here to build up the projects either. Reguyla (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to wrap this up

As the one that started this discussion I think we need to wrap this up. At this point we need to decide whether we are going to continue to leave an indefinite ban for socking against an editor with 50, 000 edits that has no evidence, no proof and is based on guesswork from another wiki or are we going to unblock them and see if they continue to edit. Reguyla (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it should be wrapped up. People I respect have done their jobs professionally and come to reasonable conclusions. The rest of the noise here seems to be completely based on your prejudice against en:wp. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  ResolvedI don't see any reason to doubt CU opinions about this. Since you both agree to close this... Yann (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: Could you take care of the unblock request on his talk? Thx. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Igor alexandrov and User:Stratforder

User:Igor alexandrov and User:Stratforder, for repeatedly uploading, with probably falsified descriptions, photographs of passports, often when such passports on their own are protected by unexpired Government copyright, when he obviously neither physically possess such passports nor is he legally entitled to do so as the named and authorized passport-holder-and-bearer anyway (an unexpired passport usually remain the property of the issuer of such a passport), from the Internet. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done No admin action required. I nominate the passport photos for deletion. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Délcio Moreno

Please block Délcio Moreno (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  = copyvio-only account (music), Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios, updated by me). Gunnex (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done, blocked indefinitely. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

May be of interest...

I'm guessing the user name here might not be quite the truth... (assuming anyone remembers him). --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Shyguy45

Please block Shyguy45 and delete his two uploads; both of them are seemingly attack pages. One of them I nominated for deletion already, so you can close the nomination as moot. Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Images deleted and user blocked for 1 week. --Túrelio (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Reguyla's block

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

It is not necessary to split discussions, a note on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#De-admin_discussion_of_user_Odder would be enough. Parameters changed. Enough drama. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

When Odder unblocked Reguyla, Reguyla had already served 8 hours and 32 minutes of his or her block: 

 2015-08-04-04:24
-2015-08-03-19:52
            08:32

This means that there were 63 hours and 28 minutes (2 days, 15 hours, 28 minutes) remaining on block at the time: 

72:00
-08:32
 63:28

Yann didn't factor in the eight hours Reguyla already served when he reblocked Reguyla for another 72 hours.

Reguyla's block should expire at 03:57 on August 4th 7th, 2015, not at 12:29 on that day: 

 2015-08-04-12:29    12   27
+        02-15:28   +15  -24
 2015-08-07-03:57    27   03

I don't believe that it's appropriate to force Reguyla eight and half more hours of being banned. Can a sysop please set the expiration date for Reguyla's block to 03:57 on August 4th 7th, 2015 (UTC)? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Yann: and @Odder: . --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Michaeldsuarez: You working on the Mayan calendar or something ? It's 15:22 on August 4th now, could you possibly double check your times/dates if possible and I'm sure an uninvolved administrator will resolve the issue for you. I'd also be interested to hear whether Yannf considers the re-blocking of Reguyla to be preventative or punitive now, given the fact that Reguyla was unblocked for several hours and didn't repeat the behaviour for which he was blocked. Nick (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Nick, not everyone edits Commons 24/7 and looking at Reguyla's edit pattern shows a general break between around midnight to midday UTC, which is the period covered by the unblock. It's pretty clear therefore that your assessment about Reguyla's lack of repeat behaviour is completely irrelevant if they were asleep or otherwise busy IRL. In addition Reguyla has already said they are busy IRL this week (though it is possible that remark is just bravado in the face of a block). -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
That's precisely my point Colin - from my point of view, there were no edits, good or bad, on which to judge whether Reguyla needed to be re-blocked. I've always tended to the default position being "unblock" and I'm interested, solely to better understand another administrator's blocking actions, whether Yannf thinks the block remains preventative or becomes punitive when it's reinstated, and whether they would tend to have a default position of blocking the user rather than unblocking the user until the situation is resolved or the block expires. Nick (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the seventh. I wrote today's date by mistake. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a question of hours, but principle. Unless I misunderstood something, I didn't see that Reguyla understood why he was blocked. I don't mind unblocking him right now if he acknowledges that. Natuur12 explained that very well in his decline message. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I disapprove of using blocks and bans in such a manner. Reeducation shouldn't be a part of wiki culture. Reguyla has a right to not share your views or values. You shouldn't use the block feature to force people to conform to your views or values. "Preventative, not punitive" has become an excuse to reeducate users. "Preventative, not punitive" was a horrible idea that causes unnecessary suffering. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Different opinions are fine, and even good, except when it leads to disruption. I didn't block Reguyla because he has a different opinion, but because he has used Commons as a forum against a WP issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
You warned him for vandalism and for trolling, and specifically blocked him for trolling, not "because he has used Commons as a forum against a WP issue". I can't see any vandalism for which to warn him over and it's quite difficult to describe his edits as trolling. The use of Commons as a forum against (English) Wikipedia issues is indeed a problem but it was not communicated clearly to Reguyla that he may not do this, or that we find this behaviour disruptive (and whilst I suspect he knows, it's important to clearly communication to all users and not just assume users know they're causing problems). I would have considered a block for between 12 and 24 hours acceptable when preceded by a sensible explanation of what we find wrong with his behaviour, had the behaviour continued. I partially agree with Michael - in this situation, we're not here to re-educate Reguyla, if he wishes to continue to complain about the English Wikipedia, he should do this somewhere else and just not disrupt Commons with complaints about English Wikipedia. It's clearly acceptable (and highly desirable) in other circumstances to re-educate users on things like general copyright policy, licensing, freedom of panorama and such things, if necessary, through the use of blocks - personal opinion doesn't extend to copyright law in the way it does deciding if criticism is appropriate and valid. Nick (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
So we are discussing +/- eight and a half hours of blocking time? Are you guys serious? If there's a calculation error, just change it. Holy deposit slip.... --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I didn't want comments about the length of Reguyla's block to be lost in the sea of "get Odder" and "defend Odder" posts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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


Template:Border-radius

Someone please immediately indef protect Template:Border-radius. Someone modified it earlier damaging every page, including village pump, this page, every page with community tabs, etc that transcluded that template with some nonsense. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done, also blocked Jonassés Lucas (talk · contribs) 1 week. Thibaut120094 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nurio Adriano

Please indef block Nurio Adriano (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  = returned from previous block, copyvio-only account (music), Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios, updated by me). Gunnex (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

+ Lucombostart (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Gunnex (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
+ Fernando Manuel Monteiro (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Gunnex (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello? --> guys continuing uploading files, see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios and (example) https://www.facebook.com/pages/GN-Commons/920336011341496. Gunnex (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done 3 accounts blocked undef. Yann (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Cat stop now

Please have a look at User:Cat stop now. His activities seem to be limited to the discussion page of User:Derzno and to deletion requests for categories Derzno created. I think he is identical with User:Oldswitch2015 and User:Alterschalter2015. Alterschalter has been banned infinitely on German Wikipedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung&oldid=117164370#Benutzer:Alterschalter.2FBenutzer:Alterlumpers_.28erl..2 I think, as an IP he also removed links to Commons from lists of protected areas in Bavaria yesterday, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beiträge/129.13.72.197 The IP address belongs to the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, but I would not exclude it is an open proxy. --Blech (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

After I had a closer look at the IP's edits, I do not think any longer that it belongs to Cat/Schalter. Alterschalter has a quite narrow span of interest (his home village Happurg and stalking Derzno), edits of the IP go far beyond that. --Blech (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please block user derzno unlimited. This user is adding again and again since a long time empty categories or stub categories with 1 or 2 pictures. The user was informed about his fail a couple times but still ignores to change his contribution. Examples: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Derzno#Leere_Cats https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Derzno/Archive/2015#Unterlasse_es_sofort https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Derzno/Archive/2014#Naturschutzgebiete_in_Bayern https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Derzno/Archive/2013#Geotop-Kategorien

Now he involves his friends to support him. User:cat stop now blocking is without any true reason. All requests to delete were right and performed from administrators. Derzno brings more problems into Commons as added value. Please remove him also from his special auto patrolled user right and file renaming. Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.238.169.63 (talk • contribs)

  Done User:Denniss blocked Cat stop now indefinitely with reason "vandalism-only account". Taivo (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dj Lirio

Please indef block Dj Lirio (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , copyvio-only account (music), Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios, updated by me). Gunnex (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done As this is his/her first block and there were not so many deleted files, I blocked him/her for a month, not indefinitely. Taivo (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:PermissionOTRS/en

Please lower the protection of Template:PermissionOTRS/en to semiprotection. As can be seen from the edit history, this would have been sufficient to prevent all past instances of vandalism, and as can be seen from Template talk:PermissionOTRS#Rewrite and Category:Commons protected edit requests, habitual excessive protection combined with too few active administrators is holding up improvements. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: This template is widely used (741377 times), it should be full fullprotecte. Please restore protection. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@LX: Admin @Green Giant: has replayed to your request. Nothing is holding up improvements. This is a huge change, which is affecting then thousands of files. No reason to hurry. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
One reply after I whined about nothing happening for well over a month! And the reply did nothing to improve the state of the demonstrably confusing template or provide any actionable suggestions to expedite handling of the edit request. There aren't a lot of things that are urgent on Commons, but if we create uncertainty about whether or not our content is free to use, that is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Not everything that's widely used needs to be habitually "fullprotecte" for no reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Changed done. Reprotected. No need for drama. Yann (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Iago mendoquim

Please block Iago mendoquim (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Belmaachi" image spam

Hi everybody. I'm normally a Wikipedia guy so I am not 100% familiar with how things work around here and I could do with some help sorting out a fairly large spam problem. Over on English Wikipedia there was a nest of sockpuppets making spam articles with names variant on "Selim Belmaachi". Mostly these were copies of other articles with the name hamfistedly changed or added. Sometimes they were legitimate articles where the name had been changed. These all got deleted or reverted and some of the socks were blocked. When I checked over here to see if the same problem existed I found that it does and that it is even worse! There are loads of different socks who have all uploaded copies of other images (some legitimate) and given them misleading titles with the name "Belmaachi" in them. The licence info is bizarre in many cases (e.g. NASA PD). Even worse, the descriptions of the images are some stuff in French about a Moroccan court case. I don't know if it is an allegation against Belmaachi or something else but I'm sure it isn't anything good. I started nominating them all for deletion but now I see how many there are I can't get through them all and it seems that tagging each one separately is probably not the best approach anyway. I think this needs a systematic approach as follows:

  1. Find every image with "Belmaachi" in the name.
  2. Find every user who has uploaded these images.
  3. Quickly check for any legitimate users found by mistake (although unlikely to be any).
  4. Block all the rest as spammers and sockpuppets.
  5. Delete all the images (unless any are legitimate images that have been renamed, in which case revert their names).
  6. Check any other images uploaded by the same users. Those will probably be deletable too.
  7. Protect new images with "Belmaachi" in the name to prevent creation.
  8. If there is a common IP behind all these uploads then consider banning it. The spammer is persistent and willing to make as many sockpuppet accounts as they feel they need so it could be an ongoing problem.

I'm sorry if this means that I am giving somebody a lot of work to deal with such bizarre and idiotic behaviour. My hope is that if you can stomp on this completely then the spammer will give up and go away. While he thinks he is playing "cat and mouse" with me then he may continue but if he realises that he is playing "steamroller and mouse" with you then he might finally realise that he is wasting his time and go away. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Barely had a posted this when I got a message from CactusWriter saying that he had made a similar request here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#145_hoax_photos
Please take care not to double up on handling this. It is bad enough that one of you has to spend time on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Working on it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bombous Paradoxus

FYI I blocked Bombous Paradoxus (talk · contribs) for reuploading the same soft porn images under a new account. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Alberto Correia José

Please indef block Alberto Correia José (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  = returned from previous block, copyvio-only account (music), Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios). Gunnex (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  Comment I am blocking the whole list. I don't think such a concerted attempt is acceptable. BTW did anyone contact Facebook, asking for a blocking of these accounts / groups? Yann (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I did it for GN-Commons (but you have limited options and can't give any individual explanatory feedback so the outcome is unsure). After @Teles: 's report on Meta I posted recently a reminder for Philippe (WMF) on his user talk at Meta. Btw, thanks for the blocks. Gunnex (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I sent a general feedback reporting these groups. However a mail from someone with official capacity might be more efficient. @WMF Legal, Jalexander-WMF, Philippe (WMF), and WMFOffice:  ? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  Question What about Jeremias_Victor? Yann (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
No uploads, user appears to be from Angola but most likely not related because these users (so far as I know) never made edits in local ptwiki. Gunnex (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. I added Nelsonpaulomateus. (talk · contribs) to the list. Yann (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done Whole list blocked. Hopefully, the message is clear that this is not acceptable here. Yann (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky384

Please block Ricky384 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims as soon as the previous one-week block expired. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done by Steinsplitter. Yann (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dino nam

Please block Dino nam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for repeatedly recreating previously deleted content outside of process in spite of specific warnings. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a month to give time to read and understand COM:L. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Bilalwikipedia

This is a spillover problem form en.wp. I had been trying to talk to this user about their egomaniacal spamming of their own name and image into articles and elsewhere. They never communicated, just kept at it, and finally I blocked them. Upon further investigation I found that they are an obvious sock of another user, User:Masoom.bilal73 and that a third identity User:Phalia786 also had uploads here. So far, all the uploads I have seen are out of scope, either because they are just vanity images of the user that they insert in inappropriate places, or because they are not free images to begin with. I had already nominated a number of them for deletion before the socking angle became clear to me and I realized this was not a new user at all, but a persistent self-promoting spammer. I know policy is a little different over here, but I would suggest taking a close look at all uploads by these users and maybe blocking them for wasting the community's time with garbage uploads and socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, have looked at all uploads by all three, every one is either a picture of themselves or obvious google maps screengrabs with copyright notices right on them, except for the map the last one created, which is a real map, but with their name all across it like a watermark. Looks like less than a dozen images altogether. This seems like pretty clear abuse/incompetence, maybe a little of both. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Both socks blocked, and copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that was fast! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Mkmillenium

Special:Contributions/Mkmillenium Jee 15:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Warned and reverted. Yann (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. Jee 01:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Due to continuation of same behaviour, now blocked for a week and reverted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Upload protection for file

I request an upload protection for File:Countries with Spanish as an official language.svg (hist • logs • abuse log) because several newly-registered users make changes against the consensus on the discussion page.
–Inhakito (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done I semi-protected the file. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

188.32.4.209 (talk · contribs)

This user keeps modifying pages on canids on not just Commons, but also Wikipedia (where they have already been blocked), and Wikispecies. Usually they remove "lupus" from species names, or completely remove domestic dogs and dingos from lists of subspecies. Usually they modify the text of the MSW link, even though it doesn't match what MSW actually says. I have already undone most of the edits.--Pqqq1 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Rimone211

Please block Rimone211 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload copyvios after warnings. INeverCry 22:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Unprotections

Can somebody remove the protections on User:INeverCry/Stuff and User:INeverCry/Barnstars? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 01:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@INeverCry:   Done, welcome back! :) Thibaut120094 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Merci.   INeverCry 01:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Brunito.PNG

Please semi-protect File:Brunito.PNG, see file history there. Or even delete it. --Achim (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  •  
    Now available here!
  copyvio deleted --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Weisenstar

In addition to uploading numerous copyrighted photos he claimed to have been his own, User:Weisenstar is now disruptively and repeatedly re-nominating and re-re-nominating one of my own uploads for deletion, which has a clear copyright release and already passed inspection twice: [5][6]. Please do something to stop his disruptive behavior. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I closed the deletion request speedily as kept, because there were no new arguments. I warned Weisenstar, but I think, that no block is needed now. Taivo (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I blocked Ed killer gein (talk · contribs) indefinitely, because he threatened to kill another user. Apparently he is sockpuppet of Weisenstar. Sockpuppet investigation would be not bad. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Both accounts have been blocked on English Wikipedia, for personal attacks, sockpuppeting, disruptive editing, and uploading copyvio images there as well [7], [8]. Weisenstar really needs to be blocked here on Commons as well: Most all of his uploads (which he claims to have taken all over the world, even though he lives in the Philippines and can't be bothered to type correctly or like an adult) have been proven copyvios. Most of those that haven't yet been proven to be copyvios are deliberately mislabeled as the wrong breed. And as User:Hafspajen has pointed out on one of the deletion discussions, all of the photos are of wildly varying quality and obviously not taken by the same person. Lastly, conveniently and deliberately, none of the photos have EXIF data or verifiable Metadata. The user is clearly up to no good and is here only for trolling; his latest round of trolling includes accusing User:DragonflySixtyseven of being my sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I discovered Weisenstar after one of his uploads was listed for renaming. Then I looked at what else he had uploaded, and then started rummaging through what else he was involved with... I've nominated all his uploads for bulk deletion, as per the precautionary principle. DS (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done Indef blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
He filed a unblock request. (just FYI) --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the number of copright problems in the user's previous uploads, their obviously questionable loyalty to the project and the limited interest of these images, I have deleted all the user's uploads. Rama (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Steinsplitter, DS, Rama, and Taivo. I believe there is an additional sockpuppet, Orayht. Thus far has only uploaded one image, but it is a probable copyvio. The style of the upload text is identical, the user is in the Philippines (like Weisenstar), and Weisenstar used the image the same day it was uploaded, both in a spurious Wikipedia article he created called Ryan rens that was speedily deleted, and in Ryan Rems. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Fishman182

FYI: Blocked for 4 weeks, uploading (c)vios after warnings. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

MacCheese23

Please block MacCheese23 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done One week for thinking over. Taivo (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Belmaachi Hoaxer/Spammer is back

Hi all,

I thought we had got rid of the Belmaachi spammer but it seems not. User:Janet Langhart Cohen has already been blocked but now User:Muhammad Salih has popped up. It is the same pattern as before (see: Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir) of uploading copies of other images and documents with the name Selim Belmaachi in the title and a screed of goodness knows what in the description.

Please search for "belmaachi" in both filenames and descriptions. I am pretty sure that everything you find will need to be deleted (apart from the category linked above) and the author(s) blocked.

I strongly recommend to put something in place to stop, or at least deter, this idiocy recurring. Can the source IPs be blocked or the string "belmaachi" be blacklisted in filenames and descriptions? Do you have access to the Checkuser tool, as used on Wikipedia to detect/confirm sockpuppets? If so, I recommend to use that to see if there are any other sleeper accounts registered for this purpose.

I also worry that the names of some of these socks are likely to be those of real people who have nothing to do with this. I guess they should be protected from having their names spuriously associated with this craziness. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nico the fat

Please block Nico the fat (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --A.Savin 10:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:MrMaximMinkin

Please block MrMaximMinkin (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  indefinitely for repeat copyvios despite warnings and a previous block for the same reason. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --A.Savin 10:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you A.Savin! Ariadacapo (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wikipe-tan trifecta sign softened language.png

Vandalized by two users because m:Don't_be_a_dick has been protected after edit war. I uploaded this graphic and it is used on talk pages intentionally left blank. Please protect. Thanks in advance. --Sargoth (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Type of protection requested: Content disputes; three years

  Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sieraleezzz

Please block Sieraleezzz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : Per disruptive edits. Gunnex (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done by MultichillThx. Gunnex (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

KristenBradley1992

Attack account - needs a quick block KristenBradley1992 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  --Herby talk thyme 08:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done by Jianhui67. Yann (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

JorgeFelipee5561

Please block JorgeFelipee5561 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week with a warning that any further copyvios will result in an indefinite block. I deleted all the images, except for one that's just {{PD-textlogo}}. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thomasshaw9688

Please block Thomasshaw9688 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings and 2 previous blocks. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi spam/hoax again

Hi all. The Belmaachi spammer is back again (see Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir) but has only uploaded a single file this time. Please block the latest sock, User:Ammar al Baluchi, and delete File:Mounir Majidi Abd al-Aziz Al Saud Selim Belmaachi (left).png. If possible, please check for sleeper accounts and ban any IP used consistently by the various socks. Also, maybe just blacklist the name "Belamaachi" as a substring of any file name. This bozo may have backed off a bit but he isn't giving up. Anything that can be done to curtail his idiotic behaviour without requiring manual intervention every time, or obstructing legitimate users, would be very welcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi spam/hoax again 2

Thanks for blocking that one. Unfortunately the next one is here already. Please block User:1151 hours, on 15 April 2008 and delete everything that account has uploaded. It is all the same sort of crap. Is there no way to deal with this systematically and stop him coming back again and again? I'm sure we all have better things to do than play whack-a-mole with this twerp. Can his IP be blocked? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done - blocked and images deleted. Might want to get a checkuser involved to see about IP hard blocks or range blocks, and to look for sleepers. WJBscribe (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Have made a checkuser request, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir. WJBscribe (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I made searchable clicks at the top of the Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir page, so you're two clicks from seeing any use of his two favorite strings. I have it on my "every few days" to check list, he has certainly slowed down. We also need to consider that he is computer literate and probably uses multiple addresses. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Abusing Commons

User appears completely uninterested in Commons except to promote their own business. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Alaan681

Please block Alaan681 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings and a previous block. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jym63

Jym63 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Goes on uploading copyvios after multiple warnings. Sealle (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  Not done User received a block warning from Yann and their uploads stopped. Ankry (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ankry: Stopped or not - nobody knows so far. Please check timestamps - the final warning has been made an hour ago, after this request. Sealle (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sealle: I see no user uploads after final warning (17:10 UTC). (Last upload is 16:48 UTC.) Any further copyvio upload is a reason to block. Not earlier ones. DR time does not matter. And not all user uploads are copyvios. Ankry (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nadhir97

Please block Nadhir97 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Taivo (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi spam/hoax again

Hi all. The tedious "Belmaachi" spammer/hoaxer is back again (Backstory: Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir). The username seems to be impersonating somebody else, which has been done before. Please block User:Peterson, William Russell and delete all files uploaded by that account. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Didym (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Antonio tchiloya messele

Please block Antonio tchiloya messele (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings and a previous block. Angola Facebook case (non-music). Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done 3 month block for out-of-scope uploads. Next one should be indefinite. Ankry (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Naner Wikipedista

Please block Naner Wikipedista (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings + vandal edits like [9]. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --A.Savin 20:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

FYI:   Blocked indef. The last nonsense mass deletion request for wrong date(!) did it.File:Kopfschuettel.gif Long history of disruptive editing. Can't or doesn't want to learn to be a productive user. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

He made a request for unblock and I declined that. He is also blocked indefinitely in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I closed the DR. Yann (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think in this case it is mostly a matter of age. In one or two years he could change from a vandal-like enfant terrible to a very productive user. The weird DR was his way to try out VFC, which he had installed in his .js just before: And you know how the 1st option of that tool is to make a mass deletion, no, say, append text or search/replace. A three-month block would give him a nice Xmas gift, and maybe he'll start improving by then. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
+1 Playing with the tools is good, they just need to work out where the boundaries are and how to safely test ideas. This last example looked misguided rather than vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, then I am waiting for a unblock request with a detailed explanation. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Same pattern over and over. Messing things up, saying sorry, won't do it again. Turns around and same s*it happens again. And yes, playing with tools is fine, creating mass deletion requests with stupid reasons is vandalism and disruptive. That wasn't an excusable accident but a deliberate action.
  Strong oppose to reducing the block to 3 mo. Look at his history first. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ras Benjih

Please block Ras Benjih (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Sockpuppet of account blocked for promotional activities and pursuing the same promotional activities. Ras Benjih says his real name is Edwin Molupe[10] and has created an English Wikipedia article called Edwin Molupe that has been deleted, as well as a page linking the two names in his user space.[11] Under both names Ras Benjih and Molupe (whether Edwin or Mojalefa) content has been written involving Emol4Life and Designed4Life; see en:User talk:Mojalefa Molupe and the graphics posted here by User:Ras Benjih. Largoplazo (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  Info although uploaded content is out-of-scope and (maybe) copyvio, I see no evidence for sockpuppetting: content uploaded by the two accounts seems to me to be unrelated. Ankry (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done Blocked a week for vandalism. Yann (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at en:User talk:Mojalefa Molupe re deletions of articles about Emol4Life, corresponding to the Emol4Life image File:Emol4life.page.tl.gif Ras Benjih posted here, as well as all his content related to it on English Wikipedia (like en:Template:Designed4Life, which flashes "Emol4Life" in an animation)? This is in addition to Ras Benjih saying his name is Molupe and writing articles about Molupe. User:Mojalefa Molupe is an indefinitely blocked user here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: activity on another project is not a reason to block a user here. I the user performs multi-wiki vandalizm, ask Stewards for a global block on this page. Ankry (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for him to be blocked here based on activity elsewhere. (I understand why you wouldn't do that.) I was asking for him to be blocked here based on him being a sockpuppet here for an account that's blocked here. Evidence that one account here is a block-evading sockpuppet of another account here can come from anywhere, no? Largoplazo (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Checkusers asked here. Ankry (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done Blocked indefinitely by Krd Ankry (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I just discovered that a User:Emol4Life was also blocked here as a promotion-only account. Not only that, but only this minute I noticed that the "Emol" part = Edwin Molupe. Largoplazo (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

BeGasy and BeGasy-Bot

Please block BeGasy-Bot (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for evasion of blocks. His previous account, BeGasy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , has been blocked with an expiry time of 1 week for copyright violations. 153.206.172.56 13:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please block BeGas1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for evasion of blocks. 153.230.246.38 13:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Pinging CU to look deeper into it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Already done, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/BeGasy‎. Yann (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please block WikiGasi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for evasion of blocks. 153.230.42.246 20:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done per   It looks like a duck to me, same file, no CU necessary. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Editwar by User:Lx 121

Hi, Please protect. See here. See also users blocklog. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

hi; you bet your ASS i'm "edit-warring"

this user has place a fancy graphic "notice" on a category page, & it is BLOCKING information on the page.

i cannot see information for rotation alternatives.

i cannot see the catscan link.

i cannot see HOW MANY ITEMS HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE CATEGORY.

when i tried to fix the problem, the user REVERTED TO THE BROKEN PAGE, repeatedly.

when i tried to TALK TO THEM about it, on their talk page:

first they assured me that "everything was ok"

then they REMOVED my subsequent comments.

there is NO POLICY to support breaking category pages.

& now the user is requesting "protection" of their edit that makes the cetegory page header useless!?

i'm sorry if my response seems a little bit "heated", but this user is being both stubborn, & quite frankly stupid in not understanding how unacceptable it is to block CATEGORY PAGES.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

diffs are pending - Lx 121 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Please by kind to other users and don't yell :-( --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Blocked Lx 121 for 2 weeks for editwarring. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Yann: It is frustrating, the user is edit-warring to add non helpful br's to the page instead of helping with moving the rotate api forward. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of User:Lx 121’s uncollegial tone and behaviour, that slanted yellow “sticker” on Category:Images requiring rotation by bot is an eyesore that does not belong in a serious project — the fact that it does hide relevant information of the cat. page, at least in some resolutions/skins, should be enough reason to change it to something less obstrusive. I’m frankly surprised to see such a “problematic” design option championed by Steinsplitter, whom I’m otherwise always glad to see doing the right thing in so many aspects of our work. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: If you like to change it, feel fee. I don't have a problem if someone friendly asks, but if someone is yelling like Lx 121 i have. Lx 121 needs to learn to talk friendly to other users, even if the user has done something obvious wrong. This is not the first time the user has been blocked because of his bad behaviour. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: using tmbox now for the cat page :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks fine now, Steinsplitter, i.m.h.o. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
While editwarring might not have been the best reason to provide as block reason the user did violate his unblock conditions by being just plain rude again. Natuur12 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi spam again

Hi all. The Belmaachi spammer (see Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir) is back again. This time the spammer is trying to conflate the name with the Sept 11 2001 terrorist atrocity. I have no idea why he would want to do this but it seems pretty disgusting. Anyway, please block User:8a. DESIGNATION and delete the image he has uploaded. It is clearly a copy of something else. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done The image can be kept. I restored the proper description, source, author, and license. Yann (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Diego julio mata

Please block Diego julio mata (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Samar646

Please block Samar646 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (copyvio-only-account) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mp

Please protect Template:Mp. Thanks.--LL221W (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  Not done used 7 times, not a high traffic template. Vandalism expected? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

unprotext File:Wikimedia chapters existing.svg for a few minutes

Could you please unblock File:Wikimedia chapters existing.svg for a few minutes, so that I can upload an updated map? It is painfully outdated... Effeietsanders (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done Pleclown (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Updated, thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Reprotected. Pleclown (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

SorrisodaWiki

Please block (again) SorrisodaWiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (copyvio-only-account) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

See also logs ("active since 2012). But the final warning was added only today be myself... Gunnex (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  blocked indef. Got plenty of warnings. Same old copyvios. Not willing to abide copyright laws. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wikipe-tan trifecta sign softened language.png

About two weeks ago, a user requested protection for File:Wikipe-tan trifecta sign softened language.png with a claim of vandalism. In fact, the image had been edited to reflect the new name of the page in question, m:Don't be a jerk, which is perfectly appropriate and makes infinitely more sense than a directive of “Don’t.” So I’m requesting unprotection and/or reversion of this image. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be a violation of COM:OVERWRITE. Because like the title says, the file is the softened version of File:Wikipe-tan_trifecta_sign.png, just use this file. Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  Not done, already discussed in full length. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: It would say “jerk” instead of “dick.” How is this not a softened version? And how is the current “softened” version even readable? @Hedwig in Washington: May I ask where this was discussed? —67.14.236.50 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Fix or delete, but leaving just "Don't " is ridiculous.
Besides which, what happened to NOTCENSORED? Commons is full of much worse than "Don't be a dick" (We can illustrate how to be one, in graphic detail). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't be a dick. There's something to think about. Food 4 thought: Restarting the discussion could be considered disruptive.
@Andy Dingley: The file in question is a good start for anyone who want's to create his own Don't be.... Therefore in scope and not ridiculous at all. It's not censored, only different from the others. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Again, where was this discussed? The only discussion of this that I’ve seen has been on m:Talk:Don't be a jerk, and the resolution to that was the reversion I’m requesting here. If you want to accuse me of being disruptive, you’re going to have to give more detail. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 23:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, you know. Don't play games, your IP is blocked for today. That'll give you time to read Com:Overwrite. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  Not done again. The protection is pursuant to COM:OVERWRITE perfectly valid. File is a DW of a original work. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jcmpineda

FWIW: Reupload of (c)vios, for now AGF. Blocked 1 day to finally get his/her attention before we have to block the account for longer or indef. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

VH-WTF

VH-WTF (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is another sock of Russavia, please indef for block evasion. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

DRingCopyvios (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is also a sock of Russavia. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Please post this at Meta to have WMF block/lock them, you don't need to post this here. --Denniss (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? Russavia is blocked locally, admins should be blocking those who evade blocks. ColonialGrid (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
We are not responsible to enforce WMF bans that were made without stating valid reasons. And he was locally blocked by an Admin running mad/old enemy counting the last win over him. --Denniss (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking for enforcement of a WMF ban, I'm asking for enforcement of a local indef which is still in force. Russavia is evading a local block, and admins should be blocking socks; if you don't want to fine, let someone else who does. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a good example of admins double stand compared to this. And what about the suitability of this WTF accounts per Commons:Username policy? Jee 15:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be an aircraft tail number. And since you bring up double standards, I think admins have more useful things to do than to block over 60 users. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes; admins are busy with better things educating fellow admins. Jee 17:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Иван Карбышев

Иван Карбышев (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

The user has uploaded once again all the files, deleted for copyvio. Sealle (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pakelectrical

Pakelectrical (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has continued to upload copyrighted images despite a final warning two weeks ago. --Ahecht (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him for a month, most of the uploads are nominated for deletion or even speedily deleted. Taivo (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Davesidhu

Davesidhu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Just for records: I have blocked them for 3 moths because of reuploading out of scope contribution and other reasons explained in this OTRS ticket. No constructive contribution from this user till now. Feel free to change the block length if you find it inappropriate. Ankry (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

IMHO Vandalism only account. I don't think anything positive can come out of this. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

One pair matching socks

Greetings, please take a look at User:SpiffyAnarchist88 and User:SpiffyAnarchist who are uploading images from a copyrighted website of a free computer server. That the software is free is stated, but the images used on their website are stated to be (c). I don't see any explanation on their user page/s to show why they have the two accounts, both uploading stuff about the same product. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This pair of master and sock are OK as long as the copvios aren't continued. Two files deleted as copvios. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-se-2-million.svg is currently the sv.wp's logo. (it is is use, right now). Please protect it as needed. Josve05a (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done Congratz SV-wiki!   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Sonia Sevilla

This user uploaded a patently non-free AFP photo with completely made-up Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike claims. In light of that and a talk page full of copyright warnings, I gave them a final warning, but I see that the user has actually been blocked for this in the past, so I think another block is a more appropriate than further warnings for something the user knows is wrong ("اوکی. راستشو می گم. همۀ این عکسای آخریم ( از مشهد به بعد ، از مسجد گوهرشاد به بعد ) مال من نبود. اما چون خوشگل بود ، برداشتم آپلود کردم." = "OK. Tell the truth. All these photographs Khrym (from Mashhad to the next, to the next Shad mosque) was not mine. But it was beautiful, I took the upload." "واقعاً متشکّرم از راهنماییت ، مطمئن باش دیگه عکس غیر آزاد بار نمی کنم ، چرا که خودم اونقد عکّاسی کردم و میدونم عکس یعنی چی!" = "Really thank you from the guide, be sure other non-free images do not load, because I know myself Avnqd photography Photo mean?") It also makes sense to prevent further uploads while the existing ones are reviewed, which is going to take considerable time considering the number of files we're dealing with. And there is a strong need to go through them all. The user claims to be the author of photos taken with dozens of different cameras, which is highly dubious. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

put the past in past. I just don't know international copyright. copyright warnings to me was in 2011. now we are in 2015.--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above was from 2013, not 2011. You have plenty of copyright violation warnings from last year on your user talk page. The AFP photo was uploaded one month ago. And you have lots of very recent uploads with extremely dubious authorship claims. This is not in the past.
If you don't know that you can't just make up licensing claims or claim to be the author of other people's works, then you should not be uploading files to Commons. If you do know that you can't do those things but do them anyway, then you should not be uploading files to Commons either. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
every user have mistakes. why you don't see my Milions files that created by my self? Like a Mountain and a leaf? this last files u tagged is leaf and my own files is mountain. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
U translated that Farsis sentecnes WRONGLY. just an Iranian , just an Iranian user can understand me. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the DR I started and the previous DRs I see there was a promise to take more care about licensing made in 2014 when the user seemed to understand that they were unable to license other peoples images. Given that I think I'd consider (with LX) the account to be blockable given the broken promise. I'll not do it given I've started the DR though. --Herby talk thyme 10:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

help me

My own (not AFP photos, my OWN) files have been attacked by user:Herby . help me. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not a attack, just a DR (and it looks to me like a justified DR). And it is not helpful to contact a lot of admins/users on their talkpage (1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
What mean DR? is that good to taging All last files upoloaded by a user bcz for just Some files? i mean this list , not Al-Assad and other politicians. this last pics of lebanese singer are my OWN. --Sonia Sevilla (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
DR means deletion request. Taivo (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive revenge nominations

This is now getting a bit silly. The user is creating incomplete, malformed revenge deletion nominations of other people's uploads which I've at some point cleaned up with full-resolution versions from the original source or reverted vandalism on. See Special:Diff/170915708 and Special:Diff/170915718. Would somebody please put an end to this? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Sonia needs cooling down. I blocked her for 3 days for disruptive behavior. Taivo (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Angola Facebook case

Blocks regarding copyvio-only account (music), Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios, +/- constantly updated). Gunnex (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Angolla

Please indef block Wikimedia Angolla (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , copyvio-only account (music), Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Mass copyvios, +/- constantly updated). Gunnex (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done (by Hedwig in WashingtonThx). Gunnex (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

  Blocked Blocked, locked, key lost. Gimme a chance to finish my curses.   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Vladmir dos Santos

  Done Yann (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Saleth José

  Done (by DennissThx). Gunnex (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Gabriel Taty

  Done (by DennissThx). Gunnex (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mário Laton

  Done Yann (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Joel Mário

  Done Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dilson Marcos

  Done Yann (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Samanta da Silva

  Done Yann (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lúcia Daniel

  Done Yann (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Joana Zau

  Done by Denniss. Yann (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Eunice Lopes

  Done Yann (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Joana Domingos

  Done Blocked and upload deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thx. Gunnex (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Joana Miguel

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Joana Marcelo

  Done by TelesThx. Gunnex (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Joana Caetano

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Joana Manuel

Well, pity: sock already started to upload sharing the file now on Facebook... Gunnex (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done by Yann. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Osvaldo Estêvão dos Santos

Diamba

Saleth Martins

  Done Yann (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bia Mateus

Rui Estêvão dos Santos

Gloiremena

  Done Ankry (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sergio Pleya

  Done by Yann --> Thx! Gunnex (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

O Brotozinho

@Thibaut120094: I am monitoring related FB groups. Not only music files are affected. Gunnex (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done by Denniss. Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Saleth Mingo

  Done.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 20:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Saleth Jaime

Saleth Mona

  Done by Yann --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Saleth Mira + Saleth Mina

  Done by Yann. Thx! Gunnex (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Delfos Camilo

  Done by Teles. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Celma seco

  Done by Yann. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Deco Mora

  Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Selda Manuel

Well, too late. I will definitely not overengange myself in this case (btw, don't wonder about when I overwrite the uploaded audio files with a nonsense "Zero"-audio catching the uploads just-in-time) but a quick response would be very appreciated. Gunnex (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  blocked and nuked --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Lina Sousa

  blocked and nuked --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Diorena Junior + Jandira Paiva

  Both blocked & nuked --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Jandira Pedro

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Samara Bela

  Done Yann (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Marcos Araújo Braulio

  Done Yann (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Fagito Gola

  Done by Taivo. Thx! Gunnex (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Josefa Abreu

  Done by Taivo. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Salaiki Popular

  Done by Steinsplitter. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Masterfixe

Please block Masterfixe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. And please don't forget to notify them about the block this time. With such a short block and no notice, someone this inattentive isn't even going to notice. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him/her for a month and warned him/her on talk page. (S)He uploaded photos with source Google.pt. I did not block forever, because the user has some useful uploads also. Taivo (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Sockpuppets of Messina

Feipg.30 (talk · contribs) uploading/editing images that are used by Messina in dewiki only seconds after they are edited here. --Wertsoiret (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Zavalimajko

Zavalimajko (talk · contribs) uploaded several clearly non-free images as self-work. All were deleted, and a copyvio warning was given. The user has now uploaded another copyvio image, again claiming self-work, with no attempt to discuss any potential misunderstanding of copyright. --Nick (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done One week extra holiday. Yann (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Murilo77lf

Please block Murilo77lf (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (most likely indef blocked sock of Murilo12LF (talk · contributions · Statistics)) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked indef. Three accounts, mostly (c)vios. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

please protect

File:Olympiatuli 1952.jpg, need some protection against owerwriting, please delete wrong versions.--Motopark (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done I did not protect the file. Instead, I blocked FiCiW (talk · contribs) for 3 months, because (s)he was just in August blocked by Denniss for the same for 2 weeks (overwriting files). His/her next block should be indefinite. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Homo naledi hands.jpg

Can an admin please remove the editing block from the file: Homo naledi hands? It needs to be renamed into Homo naledi hand (without the final "s")--Samuele Madini (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The image is not protected but it looks like a pair of hands to me, rather than one. Why rename it? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Because it's the same hand view from both sides, so it's just one hand. When I try to move the file using the proper link (the button up on the right) it blocks me saying the file it's protected--Samuele Madini (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Poland.svg

Minor revert warring, however as the image is transcluded half a million times (see User:Fæ/SignificantReverts), reverts should be very rare so contributors should be taking more care to ensure changes have a firm documented consensus. Could someone look at protecting the image from further casual reverts? --Fæ (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done Ankry (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Elkasurkov

Elkasurkov (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for uploading copyvios after numerous warnings. Sealle (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done 3 month block. Ankry (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ps2045

Ps2045 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  could another admin look into this? Natuur12 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  1 week. Alan (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Belmaachi Spammer is back again

Hi all.

It looks like the Belmaachi Spammer has a new pair of socks. For those not familiar with this nonsense the sordid and confusing backstory is here: Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir.

Please block:

Please also delete all of their file uploads as they will be copies of other images with misleading titles intended to spam the name Selim Belmaachi and possibly to eclipse legitimate coverage of Mounir Majidi.

Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  Blocked and nuked --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons talk:Sandbox

Commons talk:Sandbox has been repeatedly re-created and deleted. Is it possible for it to be SALTed? Indef full protection to prevent re-creation? (As a side note, though not really a big deal - Indef move protection for Commons:Sandbox wouldn't be a bad idea, either.) sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀ (diskuto) 05:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Akhil9800 / Gekay job solutions

Akhil is back with two accounts, User:Nss470mnr and User:Akhilgkrishnanmnr. Contributing the same self-publicising material. Links can be seen on d:Special:Contributions/Nss470mnr, d:Special:Contributions/Akhilgkrishnanmnr, his wikidata autobiography d:Q20884169 and their related pics here. Bazj (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Blocked and nuked --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi spam/hoax again

Guess who's back. Back again. Belmaachi's back. Tell an admin...

This guy just doesn't know to quit when he is losing. This time he is trying to conflate the name Selim Belmaachi with that of King Mohammed VI of Morocco, which makes a change from trying to conflate it with that of Mounir Majidi, but it is no less vexatious.

Please block User:Mohamed Rochdi Chraïbi and delete all his uploads as duplicates of other images with misleading titles and/or descriptions. (For anybody unfamiliar with this pattern of idiocy please see Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir for the backstory and previous army of sockpuppets.) Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done by Denniss. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Babel AutoCreate

It is creating wrong categories, instead of the patten "Category:User <code>-<level>" from 16 set 2015 it is creating new categories "Category:<code>-<level>". See mw:Extension:Babel#Configuration. --V.Riullop (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Created report: phabricator:T112868 --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ClockIcon.svg

Please fully protect File:ClockIcon.svg, as it is a high risk image currently used on en:Template:OW, which is under template protection due to very high usage. A Wikipedia administrator has requested that this image be moved to Commons and fully protected here rather than being fully protected on Wikipedia. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Materialscientist (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Иван Карбышев

Иван Карбышев (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 15#Иван Карбышев and a third consecutive upload of a copy of the deleted File:Gordey Kolesov suite.png after 1-week block.
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Иван Карбышев. Sealle (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  Info User was instructed and the reuploaded (single) file deleted. Unless the user continues to upload copyvio and/or reupload deleted files I see no reason for block. Ankry (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hussainabbas1988

Please block Hussainabbas1988 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done Gave him a break until 26 Sep 2015, that should do it for now. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet another Belmaachi related sock puppet...

Thanks for dealing with the last sockpuppet (see above). I'm afraid that we have another one already: User:U.S. Navy Capt. John Kirby. Yes. This time he is impersonating a US Navy Captain! That is probably not quite vexatious enough for the US Military to call in a drone strike so please do the next best thing and block the sockpuppet and delete all his uploads. As normal, the uploads seem to be copies of legitimate images with misleading descriptions. I have no idea what he thinks he gains from this repeated pattern of idiotic behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Nuked and blocked P.S. I like the idea of solving this with a drone..... --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Notajermboysock

Please indef Notajermboysock (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  who is just another Jermboy27 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  sock. Bidgee (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Blocked --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Iraq war map, revert warring and mediation of a split may be needed

This map was highlighted automatically on SignificantReverts and after a short review seems worth an admin keeping an eye on it and deciding if protection would help. There is a history of revert-warring by editors with a low edit-count and some which seem single purpose editors (as was the original uploader). I believe that some of the confusion by the participants is the scope of the map, as it appears to an attempt to illustrating the insurgency ending in 2013 (in which case it would benefit from being protected) and a map which shows the influence of ISIS to the current time (in which case it could have {{current}} added). I do not believe it should be used as the lead image in both Iraq War (2014–present) and Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) and I'll add a note to the discussion pages of those Wikipedia articles.

Notes added on Wikipedia [12] [13]. --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Максим Василев

Максим Василев (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for another copyvio after multiple warnings including the last one. Sealle (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Blocked for one month. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

EkaPolice

See EkaPolice. Regularly downloads files that violate copyrights. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done Less than ten uploads. I warned him/her. If EkaPolice uploads one more copyright violation, then (s)he must be blocked. Taivo (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Agustin2000MJ

Please escort Agustin2000MJ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  off the premises for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations with false authorship claims and even deliberately adding fraudulent watermarks to take credit for other people's work in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done and uploads deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Eugenialen

Please block Eugenialen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (2x final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  •   Done - two weeks - while this user didn't edit for quite somme time a symbolic block is appropraite so that he/she knows that there are consequences for his actions when he logs in at Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi spam yet again

Hi all. The Belmaachi spammer is back again. This time he is impersonating the US Department of Defence. Yes, the whole department, not just one Navy Captain! This seems to be pushing the limits of what is achievable in the field of delusions of grandeur. I mean, even if anybody else was going to risk offending an organisation by impersonating it, I think they would think twice about impersonating one of the most heavily armed organisations in the whole world. Anyway, please block and delete all uploads by User:U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE · U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. U.S. DOD.. if unfamiliar with his oeuvre, please see Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir for the sordid details. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done #62... Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Gordito1869

Bitte meinen Account sperren; ich stelle meine Mitarbeit ein. Danke. --Gordito1869 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done --A.Savin 09:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Wikiversity-banner.png

Protect from new upload this image, it's used in de.wikiversity homepage, in a high-visibility template on fr.wikiversity, and soon (few weeks) also in it.wikiversity homepage. Thank you --RicoRico (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

TejaswaChaudhary

A checkuser-ed case of sockpuppeteering on en, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary leads to the fruits of his puppets on commons:

User:Carmenfinan File:Tickmill Logo.png, File:Tickmill-RED.jpg
User:Consultoeco File:Adil Dalal.jpg, File:Chitrangana-logo.jpg
User:Humanitarianprinci File:BeHappyInternational.JPG
User:Johnn728 File:TUBAL.jpg
User:Himshelg23 File:Financesonline.com Logo.png
User:Masaotrussel File:Erika Schwartz.jpg, File:Energy Power Systems Australia Logo.jpg
User:Vanbelsing File:Unblock-Us.jpg
User:Magnusjanos File:Joseph gyulay.jpg
User:Happystone42 File:Alex Carnerio.jpg
User:Teekuppikup File:Amal Al-Agroobi.jpg
Please block & delete. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The image File:Bikini Luxe logo.jpg.png was used in the sock-ball's exploits but the uploader, User:Iamsattubedi made no contribution on en & wasn't investigated. A CU on Commons may well show a connection to the group. Bazj (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

User:William Hembrom File:Xploit infotech Limited.png File:Karen leighton.jpg was revealed by his work on Commons and his case is still being investigated on en. Bazj (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked/Nuked --Denniss (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Iraq.svg

File:Flag of Iraq.svg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This file has a slow revert war going on over the script on the flag, see User:Fæ/SignificantReverts. As it is used on nearly 40,000 mainspace pages, could this be protected please? --Fæ (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done I think all flags used in mainspace should be protected as a precaution. But that's only me. Thanks for the info Fæ! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for extending the protection for File:Visa policy of Malaysia.png

File:Visa policy of Malaysia.png is protected about one month ago. However, so far I still haven't get any consensus with the other participant yet. It seems that he/she was not activitely join the relevant discussion and just always asked me to do unilateral promise. I am afraid that the edit war may restart after the protection finishes. So I apply for extending the protection period for this file.--Whisper of the heart (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done indef. protected for now. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect File:Cartoon Network 2010 logo.svg

File:Cartoon Network 2010 logo.svg has been the target of strange vandalism by an anonymous IP editor, necessitating more than two dozen anti-vandalism reverts over the past month or so. Would an admin consider applying semi-protection to this page? Protection for one month would probably be sufficient. —RP88 (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done for 2 weeks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pedro Bledilson

Please indef block Pedro Bledilson (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , copyvio-only account (music), Facebook coordinated, "Angola Facebook case" (see also User:Teles/Angola Facebook Case. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 15#Angola Facebook case. Gunnex (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done for 1y. Alan (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-animal

Hi, I protected the template because a user nominated it multiple times for speedy deletion, likely to get deleted File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg (and this was discussed often enough). Not sure about the doc page. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect File:Selfie Shoes wow.gif

File:Selfie Shoes wow.gif as nominated for deletion, has been the target of vandalism by editor who removed the poster deleted. Would an admin consider applying semi-protection to this page?. Sorry but my English is not good --Chico512   13:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done (c)vio nuked and vandal blocked. seems this guy stays with us for while. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible socks

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bn bt ec01 I received correspondence on my talk page from SpacemanSpiff that the uploader, Bn bt ec01 "removed deletion discussion tags and changed the licenses on some files (e.g. this set of edits."

Additionally, SpacemanSpiff writes that Sunny singh9128 "is also involved in this business of randomly changing the license tag of the files." and concludes "Can you please take a deeper look on this and/or request action here? " see also :en:User talk:Sunny singh9128 and an SPI on en.wiki en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunny singh9128.

I have not read the foregoing information, I'm just passing it along because I'm out of time before work this morning and hope another admin can help sort this all out. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I blocked Sunny singh9128 and filed a sockpuppet investigation on en.wiki, the two accounts are confirmed socks and noted on the SPI; the SPI also gives some info on the problems. The Bn account was started when the Sunny account was blocked short term (a few years ago) for copyvio images on en.wiki, since then the Bn account has been doing the image upload on Commons and the Sunny account has been doing most of the text work on en and other projects. —SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. The checkusers may wish to confer amongst themselves as to why they come to different conclusions and update Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bn bt ec01 accordingly. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've contacted Krd to determine where the disconnect is. Frankly, this case is as unambiguous as they come, and the en.wiki CUs agree. Эlcobbola talk 18:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi Spam Again

We have somebody uploading images with long descriptions in French which seem to be trying sneak the name Selim Belmaachi in again. Previous socks are detailed here: Category:Sockpuppets of Aliases Zahir. Please block User:Mohamed Atta (Atta) and delete their uploads. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, tagged and nuked. Yesterday I removed another pair of images and another sock. This is getting really over the top. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Alszdfo

Alszdfo (talk · contribs), vandalizing a closed DR and its closing admin’s talk page. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  Done Blocked by Hedwig in Washington. Ankry (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lavrense

Please block Lavrense (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Belmaachi spam/hoax again

Hi all. We have one new sockpuppet of the "Belmaachi Spammer" here: User:PersonalresearchinMoroco. He has only uploaded one image so far but it fits the usual pattern so please block him and delete the image. (The spammer has also been active on the French Wikipedia recently, so any French speakers who feel so inclined might want to keep an eye open for him there. I don't speak French but, using Google Translate, I saw some discussion about trying to work out a range of IP addresses to block. I don't know if they found one, or how effective it would be, but if they did find a viable way to impede him, even if only partially effective, then it might be worth implementing something similar here. ) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Where did you see this discussion? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Alvintom08

Alvintom08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who is currently blocked for uploading non-free files, has a sockpuppet account, Alvindomondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This is evidenced not only by their username, but by their userpage at English Wikipedia. They have made two edits that effectively by-pass the block set for them in August 2014. I apologize if this is the wrong place to file a report, so please ping me and let me know if I have. Thanks, K6ka (talk | contribs) 11:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yuri825

Yuri825 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 
Another copyvio after the last warning. Sealle (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done Asked a RU-speaking admin to help out. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  Done After reading conversation between Yuri and Sealle in ru.wiki, I decided to block Yuri for a year. Feel free to change block, if you consider it inappropriate. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Iraq war map.png

File:Iraq war map.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Highlighted at User:Fæ/SignificantReverts and previously raised at AN/B, this remains a hotly contested political map which is in use on 37 mainspace articles. Could someone please review it for potential longer term protection to avoid revert warring. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Addendum The English Wikipedia sanctions referenced later in this discussion can be found at en:Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, this boils down to having a "one revert rule". These general sanctions have no authority on Commons but the context may be of interest and provide some ideas for the direction to take. @DGG: @Drmies: @Magog the Ogre: as interested parties in another place, who may find it useful to stay informed. --Fæ (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Using some AGF messages first is IMO better, than protecting, etc. Only if these messages are not successful, protection is required. @Michael2552 and Banak: Please discuss before making any new changes. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted once and once only for each of the three effected maps: File:Iraq war map.png, File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png and File:Yemen war detailed map.png. The rest of the reverts on this page appear to have been an attempt to communicate whilst self reverting to the same image. It should be noted that whilst in general on commons maps should not be changed without good reason, this map is the map of a changing current event and a week-long discussion before what I thought was an uncontroversial edit would be bad.
On the issue of what to do longer term, I am not entirely sure. It was, for quite a while, assumed that the maps would reflect their corresponding English wikipedia modules. However, this ceased to be the case as one user used their own sources, which they stated in the edit summaries most of the time, and some took this to mean that other editors had no sources when they uploaded an image per the module, despite the frequent discussions there and sources being required for every edit. I have just edited my user page to try and reduce the risk of a repeat of this, and am not trying to put a banner on my talk page to request people inquiring over maps see my user page before posting. Banak (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
While this issue is raised, I think we do need to have a discussion about the nature of all seven widely used module-template based war maps. Where would be the appropriate place for that? Syria has 26 English links; Syria,Iraq and Lebanon has 17, Yemen 11, Libya 10, Iraq 8, Lebanon 2, and Syria and Iraq 52 (only 6 main-space, though). Banak (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I fully protected to map for now. The history is a wild mess. Not sure what to do either. One thing that comes to mind is to split the map. Either one file per year or a new file every time something bigger happens and then protecting the old one. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
By "hotly", I was obliquely referring to the fact that a comment had previously been suppressed, not that all parties working on the map were at fault, apologies if this put you on the defensive. Refer to AN/B archive where I previously left notes on Wikipedia talk pages, but had no feedback from there as to what action on the images users would like to see. --Fæ (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This... Is not what I was hoping for. The community wants updated maps. If you're going to protect this map you may as well protect the other 6. This protection seems entirely arbitrary, the other maps have roughly the same typical behaviour of occasional reverts, infrequent reverts of those and rare triple reverts.
There are several problems with map splitting. The first is you have to decide what the rules for the existing map are. The second is that then there is the problem of edit warring on wikipedias over which map to use, and the English Wikipedia is under general sanctions so we'd probably have a bunch of RFCs over what maps to use. The third is I have a problem when uploading new files, as it won't let me select a licence for some reason. Therefore I appeal to you, please tell me exactly what can be done to ensure we can actually have updated maps?
As for doing an update after every major change, how would you decide who does them, when they are needed and by what rules they choose what it looks like? It wouldn't solve any problems. Banak (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Fæ, can I request you put a notice on the talkpage of the file that's being discussed next time if you want feedback? I was completely unaware of that notice. My intention wasn't defensive, I want to give all information to bring about a return to normality whereby we have updated maps. One element of that is that this update, like every single one before it to File:Iraq_war_map.png had no stated source, though one in early August 2015 does refer to the module (but not stating that it's source).
Hedwig in Washington please, consider this account of what happened (and note LightandDark2000 is BlueHypercane761's legitimate alternate account if reading the upload log):
The map was uploaded on 22 June 2014. Until at least June 2015 it was based on entirely on the module. Then in early September an edit war broke out over which version was the newest, which Fæ referred to. I stepped in and made a newer version to stop any argument of the newest thus ended the first edit war. BlueHypercane761 added an update soon after, and I make another one a couple of weeks later. Note not a single one of these edits ever have a stated source. Michael2552 then reverts me on this map and two others, strangely enough twice on each (I assumed a double click). I revert referring to the source being the modules' history and talkpage, which was more than any previous upload, and has been for most of the history the assumed source. I revert two of his reverts citing the English Wikipedia modules. At which point he reverts me twice more. So he did 4 reverts and I did 1. I ask him to talk not by reverting for fear of more reverts (him having now done 3 consecutive reverts with the last 2 having no change on Yemen, totally 10 reverts across 3 pages.
So basically, what has happened is we've had a separate mini "edit war" to the first (in which neither of us were involved), in which the statistics of numbers of reverts is misleading because 2 of the 5 reverts weren't really reverts, but a novel attempt to communicate. I clearly am engaging in discussions and clearly was not intending to revert again. I therefore ask, what is the benefit of this permanent protection, and also what do I need to do to be allowed to submit updates to this map again in your eyes? I also ask, what am I meant to do about the other 2 maps with exactly the same "edit war" going on, and also for the other 4 maps. Whilst I believe you are acting in good faith, I believe your page protection is entirely counter productive, and I literally cannot see the logic behind it. Is there any way to solve this on Commons, or do I have to go on English Wikipedia, start a RFC on what we want "the maps in our articles" to be like, upload a new version for each of the seven maps if we decide they have to match the module, and make another RFC to stop them being migrated to commons to avoid users deciding to revert from getting the map designated as an "edit war" and stopping any future updates to them. This is truly ridiculous. Banak (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it would have been good for me to leave a note on the file talk page. (done)
There's no harm in putting up a proposal as an English Wikipedia RFC for better stability and this may help any solution here on Commons stick long term. As for file protection, this is just a way of slowing things down and encouraging a consensus to form. If you have changes you want to make, you only have to raise them with Hedwig, it need not be a barrier to all changes. --Fæ (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. The rules: There are no rules and how can there be any? My suggestion is to make a new map after a major update. What major is has to be decided by the uploader and/or community.Frankly, I really don't give a dime if enwiki can decide what's what or not. We have to provide our customers a good product to satisfy their needs. Having several maps that can show a timeline might be really useful to some. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to take the protection of the page. For now -IMHO- the protection should stay in place. Waiting for Michael2552 to show up here. @Banak: Could you provide a link to your source? Maybe it'll be a good idea to add at least some proof to the file. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington As I have stated above, in the edit summary of my single revert on that page (the first time any source has been stated for that map in it's edit summary), in previous edits on multiple maps, on several map talk pages, on my English Wikipedia talkpage, recently on User_talk:Ceha and on my user page, sources can be found on the module history and the talkpage, with the image being based off a template that takes information from a module. Iraqi's module's history. . I can provide similar links for all the other modules, or they can be found on my user page (though you'll have to click the history and talk tabs yourself). It was assumed that the map would mirror the module-generated template with any arguments happening there.
I believe your suggestion is unworkable. First of all, we must decide what constitutes a major update and gain a consensus for each time (assuming uploader doesn't decide). This means we spend a lot more time and energy than solving the issue now. Secondly we must decide whether we are or aren't copying the image's background exactly from the module. If the answer is yes, then there is literally no case for using the earlier file version and there is no point in this line of reasoning. If the answer is no, then you must decide who gets to make the update, and based on what criteria and we have to go through a major argument each and every time a map update is made, based on this criteria.
Also, please note the newness of Michael's account, we have no way of knowing how frequently they edit, their first edits on this account were to revert me, then themself to the same image. Then they used hotcat, then they made the edits to their talkpage. Their account has a total of 3 hours and 31 minutes of time between its first and last edit. I would like to return to the status quo of frequent updates to mirror the template.
If we aren't able to progress, please let me know which of the following are acceptable:
Creating a new map which is explicitly stated to be based on the enwiki module, which disputes happen to the relevant module's talkpage (which is basically 2 months ago's status quo)
Trying to gain a consensus on commons that the maps should mirror the modules (if so, where would I get this?)
Leaving a message on English Wikipedia's pages that show one of these maps to link to this attempt to gain this consensus.
Leaving a message on English Wikipedia's modules that help to make this map to link to this attempt to gain this consensus.
Getting the original uploader of the map to state that it is intended to mirror the corresponding template.
In short, can you please tell me how I can solve the underlying issue of what these maps actually are (which has been bubbling away for the last couple of months), and help me do something that won't be classed as edit warring. Banak (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Banak, you have to understand that Commons is not a wiki. We provide media files for a lot of different projects. The sources should be added to the file description when uploading a new version. Maps like these should be pretty accurate and reliable. Whatever is done, I don't care much how. Neither is it me alone who decides anything here on Commons. My main concern is the accuracy of the map. So, where is the source for your last upload? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington, I do understand, and I have been linking to a list of sources rather than singling out one. If you believe discussion, consensus-building and the ability of everyone to participate increases reliability and accuracy, then using the module is better than using a single uploader, especially if you are aware of the "rules of editing" that can be found in the header of en:Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War's header. Indeed, the module has been cited (albeit by reddit) repeatedly to be the best map available (with arguments over whereas ISIS has progressed further in rural areas, but there aren't any non-ISIS sources to back it up).
I believed linking you to where sources can be found would be better than explicitly giving a source. I also assume you are talking about my latest upload to File:Iraq war map.png. Nevertheless, you seen to disagree with me on the former, so I shall explictly state every source used, for the iraqi page. In general would have to be submitted to the talk page, because the edit summary would be too long, particularly for Syria.
The previous map was uploaded on 20/21st September with no stated source. Sources for edits that occurred between then and my upload on the 1st of October:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SasS3IG0mS8/VfMj_OqEc_I/AAAAAAAAEC4/42B0iU0xaB4/s1600/blobby%2Bmap%2Bvunk.png
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ramadi+situation+map+September+2015&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&biw=360&bih=264&prmd=nimv&source=lnms&tbm=i (used by the current version's uploader)
Per this source, Al Fatha is under Iraqi Army control. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SasS3IG0mS8/VfMj_OqEc_I/AAAAAAAAEC4/42B0iU0xaB4/s1600/blobby%2Bmap%2Bvunk.png (used by the current version's uploader)
"Various online maps" and http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.010992&lon=41.357002&z=15&m=bs
Link to the talk page, which includes these sources with commentary on their accuracy https://twitter.com/search?q=%23hawija&src=typd https://twitter.com/RamiAlLolah/status/648981562923610112 https://twitter.com/stevoiraq/status/648972143598800896 https://twitter.com/Sarbarzi/status/648994895148003328 https://twitter.com/hhazhan/status/648997366427746308 https://twitter.com/MevanAkreyi/status/649006628801347584 https://twitter.com/F1ea1337/status/649010321340899329
http://www.nrttv.com/EN/Details.aspx?Jimare=3702
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png (Reverted because of en:WP:Circular, as the module is used for the map)
Sorry this takes so long to type out, but it takes a while to list everything. Bare in mind that the module may not have exactly matched the .png file at the beginning, as the original uploader of the current revision has stated "By the way, the editing environment there has become much more hostile, and the new rules effectively prevent me from carrying across most of my changes to the Syrian Civil War module." (I've linked to those "new rules" above) This means that the level of verifiability we require (at least on that module page) are leading to them not being able to get changes though they'd want, though they got them through on the map. This means that modules is more verifiability than the existing image. Banak (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Per request on my talkpage I'll explain the module/Template thing. Basically editors edit modules like en:Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map that are then viewable an image (technically a couple hundred superimposed SVG files) by a template like en:Template:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map. The template itself only invokes the module. This then is screenshotted and has a foreground layer 50% transparent shading applied. Any disputes were handled at the module (before August at least), and an update was only reverted if the changes it made, with the exception of the foreground shading. Depending on your point of view, either the module, the template, or the sources used in updating the module is the source. Banak (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I particularly don't like having sources only on another project. But if this is how the cookie crumbles, so be it. This topic is so hot that every wrong info will be reverted pretty fast. @Fæ: How about we just have an eye on this map and handle it if necessary? I am not sure how to do this otherwise, the data is changing to often. Thoughts? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem. If the map does not ping up on User:Fæ/SignificantReverts there's probably nothing major to worry about. Couple of pointers:
  1. All parties who are interested in maintaining the map long term have a vested interest in ensuring that the main maps are based on a well defined set of best possible sources. I encourage those users to take responsibility for making those sources easy to find and discuss (putting highlighted notices with cross-project links on the relevant maps is a good idea), and reaching out to newcomers and those who strongly object to images to discuss how to work collegiately with fellow volunteers. This is as true on Commons as it is on Wikipedia.
  2. If anyone finds themselves unable to agree with currently used maps and is rejecting the way they are created from the agreed set of sources, then a great feature of Commons is that they can "fork" the image and create new maps that are based on different sources and which may be deliberately partisan in their nature. The mission of Commons includes representing all alternative points of view, so non-neutral maps as well as community consensus-based maps are valid here (though they probably would never become the main maps in any Wikipedia articles). This might be a useful strategy to ensure that the Commons community can work together to maintain educational content, without "fringe" viewpoints getting ignored or potential contributors blocked.
  3. There is no harm in returning to this noticeboard in the future to discuss how best to moderate revert warring or what might appear to be hostile discussion. Please treasure admins that get involved, most avoid long term heated topics of conflict especially where complex sources and lots of external links need to be reviewed before making any decisions. As an informal best practice I recommend that regular participants stick to a one-revert-rule. 1RR is rarely an official "rule" here on Commons, but I'm sure that everyone understands that maps of current wars are political and the more widely used any political map is, the more likely that it will be contested and respectful cycles of bold change—revert—discuss are inevitable.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_15&oldid=182343846"