Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 18

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Blocks and protections

Amir'khan12 sockpuppet Sirfaikistemaal

Please block and nuke the uploads of Sirfaikistemaal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , which is an obvious sockpuppet of Amir'khan12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) . —LX (talk, contribs) 19:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done ~riley (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Umesh2628

Please block Umesh2628 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to post spam after warning. INeverCry 20:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Pradyumnas741‎

Pradyumnas741‎ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been uploading copyvios for over four years now and has been warned appropriately since then. I've tagged most of the images, can someone nuke all uploads and possibly block the user? I've blocked on en.wiki for persistent copyvios there. —SpacemanSpiff 09:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked one year by User:Taivo.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Frey's Fray

Please block Frey's Fray (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous two-week block. I'd wager the account is yet another Alquevron sockpuppet. (Similar uploads, similar edits on English Wikipedia, account created shortly after the last sockpuppet was blocked.) —LX (talk, contribs) 19:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I blocked him/her for a year month. Dubious uploads are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jhony jhony ha ji

Jhony jhony ha ji (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is constantly reuploading copyvios over existing files. I've tagged the new files for deletion but can someone delete the reuploads (I don't know how to tag those) and also block the user? Warnings don't seem to have helped. —SpacemanSpiff 12:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Socks include
All three blocked on en.wiki. —SpacemanSpiff 13:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
All three blocked indef by User:~riley on Commons.[2] Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Revision deletions of copyvios are still pending, especially since these have been reverted in multiple times. —SpacemanSpiff 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Rev dels also done by ~riley, I think there was some problem with my cached pages when I looked earlier. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Tshepo4

Please block Tshepo4 (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) 08:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done First block, but a lot of copyvios. I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Rufet.Turkmen.Sefevi

Please block Rufet.Turkmen.Sefevi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for repeatedly blanking out {{delete}} notices for ongoing deletion discussions (which the user refuses to participate in):

Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Please extend the block, as the user is evading the block using multiple IP addresses, including:
These have been used for purposes including continued problem tag blanking and vandalism, e.g. Special:Diff/198625033 and Special:Diff/198595077.
Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 11:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I say again: please extend the block. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Strange image protection block

As I have often done with dark photos at commons, I went to upload an improved version of Muguruza (one that was slightly brighter only)... and was stopped dead by some sort of protection. I see it was cropped on June 10 but here on June 12 I can't fix it? Please unprotect this image (the problem seems to be at Commons:Auto-protected_files/wikipedia/en) so I can upload the improved version. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Turkmen

Please block Mr. Turkmen (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , which is a sockpuppet of #User:Rufet.Turkmen.Sefevi. (The sockpuppet was created three days after the main account is blocked. The main account is being used to insert copyright violations uploaded using the sockpuppet.) —LX (talk, contribs) 16:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked and copyvios deleted. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Shoot all Muslims

Shoot all Muslims (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Obviously inappropriate username per COM:IU --SI 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, he's xwiki vandal. See also ko:특:기여/2606:6000:fd0b:ca00:f508:8319:7dd7:2fe3. — regards, Revi 18:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Photographer

For everyone's info. I blocked The Photographer (talk · contribs) for the duration of 1 week because he once more misused the F2C-tool. This time he uploaded a lot of out of scope material (which will be nuked) and material that has com:IDENT-issue's We discussed his use of the tool here in the past. He still has almost 10k files to clean up after his previous mess. I am pinging @A.Savin: because he dealth with this issue before. Perhaps it is also woth mentioning that his behaviour in other area's has been disruptive as well lately.

Perhaps we should also revoke the LR-flag since he isn't capable to handle mass uploads and the LR flag still allows users to do a batchupload via the uploadwizzard up to 50 files. Natuur12 (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's limit this to a block. The LR right has only ever been removed from people who were shown to be unable to use it properly, or had a poor understanding of copyright and could not be trusted to use it competently, not removed punitively for other actions. I have not examined the F2C uploads, so have no view on that action.
Is there a deletion request I can take a look at for the 10,000 uploads, explaining why they may be out of scope? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
(Note, I am focusing here strictly on the block rationale, not other discussions which The Photographer was not blocked for.)
Looking at the examples File:El Obelisco (2145504018).jpg and File:Camaleón (4801450505).jpg, shows a couple of problems with this block. Firstly, these photographs are not out of scope as they have educational value and can be used for illustration, certainly their quality is fine. Secondly The Photographer was actively categorizing the uploads just before they were blocked and within just an hour of uploading the files, based on the history of the second image linked here. Blocking a user for uploading out of scope material, when it remains debatable if it was out of scope (a deletion request has yet to be created on that basis) and when the uploader was actively in the process of housekeeping the files by sensibly categorizing them seems an overreaction and punitive, when discussion may have happily resolved the problem.
In effect, this is now a Catch-22 situation, punishing The Photographer for failing to categorize files he uploaded, when the only reason he has been stopped getting on with categorization is the block.
If the problem is trusting people with F2C access, then I suggest we implement a way of locking people out of using the tool if their use of it is assessed by consensus as inappropriate, or even better automatically limiting them to under, say 1000 uploads per day via some bot process regardless of how they upload until they can be trusted with larger numbers. Controlling access to tools by blocking accounts feels heavy-handed. --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I have no desire to interact with you since you already started inflaming the situation. Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if you feel me asking basic questions about your administrator action is "inflaming the situation". It is a Commons policy requirement on you as the blocking administrator to be prepared to answer questions about your administrative action, if you are unable to do this for apparently emotive reasons, then either remove the block or ask another administrator to take full responsibility for it.
For the record, I have had no interaction with The Photographer, or Natuur12 about this block, and first noticed it after seeing that Pokéfan95 has added themselves as a viewer for Phab:T100973 (Flickr2Commons throttle needed) earlier this morning. I do not appreciate being portrayed as the bad guy for asking sensible questions intended to clarify the reasoning behind both a block and a proposal to delete 10,000 files from Commons out of process. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Fæ: Once more, you are creating drama where you don't even know what you are talking about... *sigh* Yann (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure what this means. My understanding and experience with various tools for mass uploads and mass file categorization is second to none on this project, and I have a solid understanding of Administrators. I created Phab:T100973 which resulted in Magnus taking time to change F2C code a year ago. If you have a better grasp of the issues than me, please benefit the community by reopening the ticket and making a positive request rather than griefing me by "sighing" without making any suggestion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Just my 2¢ but I for one support the block, I originally spotted the baby/mother images and wondered why on earth they were being uploaded..., Anyway images like this, this and this don't belong here and I'd imagine there's many more pointless images uploaded by him, By the looks of it he doesn't check what he's uploading ... He just smacks "transfer" and that's it, Why not do what I do and create a user category and then dump them in there and then you sort through and DR the ones that are pointless (like the 3 above) ?, Having the blook at a week should hopefully mean he'd get the message and only upload those that are useful here. –Davey2010Talk 10:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
If some are out of scope the process is to create a DR. The Photographer's help in filtering them would make sense, rather than dramatic blocks. --Fæ (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
But that's the point he's not sending them DR (the 3 above prove that although we all judge images differently), Fair enough he's categorizing them which we appreciate but some (not all) shouldn't need to be categorized because they shouldn't be here in the first place .... If that makes sense, Just an aside tho I've kicked up a fuss over block-durations here in the past so I'm not gunning for him to stay blocked nor do I dislike the editor, IMHO I just think the block (and the duration) in this case is warranted, Unless ofcourse he promises to stop the rapid-uploads and checks what images are useful first then I'd be happy for an unblock. –Davey2010Talk 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do we keep having issues with this tool? Is there any case where uploading more than 1000 flickr images in a day is likely to not generate a backlog? Could there be some in-between tool that lets the user preview and approve/reject images rapidly? Can we make it that it is mandatory to upload to a user-specific category that identifies work-in-progress images that have been batch uploaded by a user (and then the images can be moved to another category that identifies completed images batch uploaded by a user, since that information may still be useful). Is the auto-category feature ever clever enough to be useful or should it be removed as more trouble than it is worth. It seems nobody is fixing the source of the problem, which is this over-powerful and not-clever tool. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Files uploaded by The Photographer from Flickr, Category:Files uploaded by The Photographer needing categories
CatScan of intersection
I'm refreshing the 'needing categories' category with uploads from Flickr with no visible categories. If other images have visible categories, in the light that categories identifying the source Flickrstream, camera type, etc. are hidden, then there has been some extra work categorizing them and they are far less likely to appear out of scope. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Those categories were created by you, and from looking at a few examples, were populated by you. My point is that this should be automatic by the tool and by policy. I can't think of any good reason it is not, for any user whether competent or reckless. And it doesn't (yet) contain all the images in this dispute. Looking at the source Flickr stream, I am struggling to think why automatically dumping that on Commons was ever a good idea. Pick a few images and carefully describe/categories them. That's what The Photographer would do with his own work, so why be so careless with someone else's. And why not just ask the guy to join Commons and upload his own pictures -- that way we get an additional member of the community, someone who might be able to describe/categories/identify the images, and no legal issues from uploading other folk's stuff. I just feel this is a tool creating problems, and this careless usage is just a symptom of a bad attitude towards curating content for Commons that is encouraged and supported by the tool. There's perhaps a Unix mindset behind it's creation, where the author believes he's clever enough to use it wisely and assumes others will too without causing any harm. -- Colin (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. What can I say about it all? It's unbelievable. After we had the ANU thread one year ago, he wrote me an e-mail where he apologized and promised no longer to do so, but apparently he is a liar. Please indef him, should he continue this terrible upload mess at any time after his recent block. "The Photographer" is good photographer, but I prefer to relinquish his photographs to make sure this big damage to Commons he does with his Flickr2C uploads is no longer done. After all, Russavia was also a productive user, but... --A.Savin 12:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not clear to me that shortly after blocking The Photographer, Natuur12 had mass deleted uploads out of process, long before I first replied on this thread. I feel that helping organize the above maintenance category was a foolish waste of my volunteer time as I was not given all the facts of which administrator actions had already been taken. Could someone please explain precisely how this was done, so that we know which recent F2C uploads have been deleted and which have not? If the only offending files have already been deleted from Commons without a deletion request, then there is no further action expected or needed here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I have not had need to look at more than 10 pictures in the deletion log to be agreed with the mass deletion. And as there was a previous thread for the same topic, then I'm fine too with the block. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support based on the prior situation and also on some heated language on ~riley's talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Why not just give The Photographer a third chance? Look, weeks ago, Ellin Beltz was reported at COM:AN for making wrong DRs (not just the first time). Then we gave Ellin another chance. Why not give The Photographer and other users another chance too? We also gave Jcb another chance too when he mistakenly deleted files uploaded by Russavia. He even used his volunteer time to revert CommonsDelinker. This is just the second time The Photographer did again his mistake. If this is the third time or fourth time, then I would support a block. But no. And for his "some heated language on Riley's talk page", I have no comment on that. --★ Poké95 02:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC) I think I talked too quickly. ★ Poké95 07:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Exact. There are many aspects to take into account when deciding if a situation should be resolved with a block, warning or any other kind of sanction. This has little to do witch third changes but everything with how people are able to deal with a situation when something goes wrong. Should someone have known better, is the previous mess already cleaned up. How much damage is done. Which course of action is more effective. In The Photographers case words alone are seldom enough. Another example is the recent COA-case that has (or is) been discussed at AN/U. That’s why I mentioned that his overall behavior has also been problematic. Also, there is a difference between making a mistake and neglect. Doing a bad import when you really should know better falls under the category neglect. You cannot compare those cases. (Plus Ellin was cleared)
  • I always carefully weight every aspect before placing a block and make sure it is the most effective course of action analyzing all the other options before doing so. (Though, this doesn’t mean I always draw the right conclusion of course). Natuur12 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Pokéfan95 your argument about "a third chance" seems more appropriate if The Photographer was being banned. This is just a week block. But if Natuur12 is correct that there are "almost 10k files to clean up after his previous mess" then I would support some ban on using this tool (or any bulk-upload). I think tools that can make so much mess or work for others should need to be requested and approved by the community for users who demonstrate a careful plan for how they will use it and continue to show competence in its use. I don't see that here. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
I striked my oppose. I agree with Colin's point, especially that access to a certain tool should be requested first, just like AWB. ★ Poké95 07:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with Colin's point. Blocking a week may / may not be an overkill; but if the tool itself improves (eg. selection), some of theses issues may not happen at all. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I’m no fan of “The Photographer”, at all, due to many objectionable things he said and done in the past, but this time he’s yet another victim in a proxy war between conflicting concepts of what Commons should be (where, as usual, the deletionist side attacks with admin-sanctioned mass vandalism), and between the inflated egos of the usual tough guys on the internet. If File:Camaleón (4801450505).jpg is really the worst example of his delinquent uploads (I confess I have no time or patience to dig deeper, so I am trusting the accusators), then kill the block and let him work. And go work yourselves, too, as there’s a lot to be done. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It isn't the "worst example" but leaving aside your personal attacks, could you indicate a serious "keep" rationale for this social-media image. Simply saying "in scope" is as insufficient as not bothering with a rationale at all. Would you support the upload of all social-media images because, well this one illustrates a person wearing a skirt and that one illustrates a person with brown hair, etc ,etc. This is just a personal Flickr stream with a mix of personal social photos, blurred failed photos, embarrassingly badly filtered/processed photos and a few possibly useful photos. That's the point -- where's the rational for bulk upload? If we accept this kind of thing, we might as well ask Facebook if they'd change their terms to be CC BY-SA and slurp up the trillion photos that are in their database, because among those trillion photos, there are probably a few thousands that have some educational use. -- Colin (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Colin, you’re still an insufferable Removed bad word --A.Savin 03:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC) (now this is a personal attack, unlike my generic characterization of prevalent rifts among Commons power users above): I have no hope at all you’re remotely sincere in your questioning of my defense of the one given example of the off-scope mass uploads “The Photographer” is being grilled for, but should anyone feel interested in my ideas of what is the scope of Commons and what kind of files should be deleted for laying outside it, then they can just check my contribution history for DRs favoured or initiated by me. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
So this is how it happens on commons? The actual troll walks free but you block the victim?..surely this is something thats common on enwiki but here, A.Savin, not really a smart move to block Tuvalkin for something as minor as that...--Stemoc 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Stemoc, I truly puzzled how my comment above deserved hostile offensive comments and bad faith attitude from Tuválkin. He made a comment at DR which is of no help wrt policy -- people are supposed to supply a rationale that helps the closing admin, and "In scope, obviously" is merely a conclusion opinion, not a rationale or argument-from-policy. One has to say why it is in scope, and Tuválkin knows that as he's hardly a newbie. I thank A.Savin for making the appropriate response. Stemoc, you should note that there is a difference between accusing someone of trolling a discussion and calling them a troll. In the former, people can judge that based on the text we see in front of us -- and I don't think anyone could seriously regard my comment above as trolling (if you do, then I suggest you look up the definition). But calling someone a troll is a description of their character, attitude and long-term behaviour. Perhaps you wish to take me to AN/U and get me blocked for being a troll (for which you will require diffs and to make a case over a long period of time). Commons should not permit trolls to stay (Reguyla was a pretty good example of a troll, and he was blocked eventually). Otherwise I warn you that saying this will be regarded as a personal attack, for which you could be blocked. Perhaps you and Tuválkin could restrict your comments here to the topic, which is the allegedly reckless use of F2C leading to a block. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You are the boy that likes to cry wolf all the time, Everyone here knows its impossible to get you blocked, anyone that tried have either been de-sysopped or bullied off by you and your friends. No one is disagreeing with ThePhotographer's block, which is nearly up and maybe now he can defend his actions which was something he was not actually accorded..anyways, You can't troll me into getting blocked, I have left my be nice to people persona a while back but you can surely try, the block on Tuvalkin was not justified, a 24 hours, definitely, a 3 days, maybe..a 7 days block is stupid.--Stemoc 07:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your "cry wolf" claim but whatever. The reason I'm not blocked is I haven't done anything blockable. Tuválkin did, and knew he was doing it. If you think his self-imposed-wiki-holiday makes him a martyr then more fool you. And see User talk:Tuvalkin/Archive 3#You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week for why his week block is justified and why he knows he can't appeal it. Perhaps you have lost your "be nice to people" persona, but you could consider just not saying anything at all then. It seems you have absolutely nothing on-topic to contribute to this discussion on the F2C block. You will notice that my contributions to this discussion, until I was personally attacked by you and Tuválkin, were completely on topic. But you just turn up to be nasty. -- Colin (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There are ways to make Flickr2Commons transfers safer and more accurate as to scope, etc. Transferring whole streams is often a hit-or-miss process unless the Flickr account only uploads images of one subject (military, political, celebs, birds, aircraft, animals, etc) or someone takes the time to see if the number of problematic images in the stream is low enough to make the cleanup minor. It's usually better to transfer individual albums/sets. These are easier to look through before transferring. The Flickr2Commons interface allows thumbnail previews of up to 599 images at a time. This allows you to look through them and untick personal pics, out of scope pics, low-quality pics, etc, and to make sure the general quality level is high enough to merit a transfer. Most albums have under 599 images. For those that are over 599 or for whole streams, it would be a good idea to scroll through the images at Flickr before opening the stream or set in F2C. I've learned that sticking to albums/sets is the most manageable method and the best way to avoid problems. Another suggestion I'd make is to only transfer a couple thousand images before taking time to do cleanup work. That way you don't get buried with 10k+ images to try and sort out.

    As for The Photographer, it's unfortunate to see him blocked. He's a dedicated contributor and does a lot of good work for Commons. I really hope this issue can get cleared up without further blocking or Wilfredo feeling he needs to leave Commons. I hope this can be resolved with a more constructive and positive solution. INeverCry 21:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info User:INeverCry. As you may guess, I haven't used Flickr2Commons and would prefer to ask a photographer to upload their own work. It is good to know there is a review facility that makes it easy (for typical albums) to carefully choose quality educational images, and reject the duds or social images that none of us would upload if it were our own work. Perhaps those with familiarity with this tool and other bots could help formulate some policy/guideline on their use, and encourage the modification of the tools to be smarter, and with less opportunity for abuse/carelessness/mistakes. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The most important principle with F2C use is quality over quantity. Unfortunately, this can get switched around when you have the ability to transfer thousands of images so easily. It's up to each individual F2C user. As regards Flickr photographers, bringing them to Commons poses a number of difficulties. Most are used to Flickr and have already taken the time to upload there, tag and sort their images into albums, etc. Uploading a second time to Commons might be seen as too time consuming or difficult. Another issue is copyright. Flickr isn't going to get on photogs for freedom of panorama violations, COM:DW, and other issues they may run into here. The best cooperation I've seen is the method used by Russavia in convincing Flickr photogs to switch to acceptable CC licenses in tandem with an experienced Commons uploader who can do the transfer more quickly and conveniently, and navigate copyright concerns like FoP more readily. INeverCry 18:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, that's not a sustainable model. give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Yes there's a learning curve for our more fussy copyright concerns, but we also gain when there are future concerns about images -- since the photographer is a user who can respond to queries. I'm afraid the model you describe just replaces a short-term problem (newbie disappointment that some of their images are deleted over copyright issues) with long-term problems (photographer claims they didn't understand the licence, the host website didn't actually own the images, photographer didn't have permission, etc, etc). The "safe harbour" laws protect WMF from being sued but there is bugger-all protection for you and I if we upload other people's work. Why anyone would do that, without being paid and legally protected and insured, is highly questionable. Eventually someone will be hurt. Flickr, for example, only permits users to upload their own work. Plus, there's a natural churn of user accounts on any project, as people come, enjoy things for a while, and eventually find a different hobby. Unless we are focused on attracting new users to Commons, then ultimately the project will go extinct. -- Colin (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A while back, when I was still a checkuser, I noticed Flickr2Commons doesn't run on a user's home IP range, but on a 10.XX/16 shared range. There was a large volume of edits on these WMF ranges, enough to where I could only run a week's CU (the CU tool is limited to displaying 10k edits on a range - after that it makes you narrow your check either by checking a smaller range or a shorter time period). Not sure if that would protect people doing F2C transfers in any way, but it might since 100,000+ edits per month are run through those 10.XX/16 ranges.

Attracting new users isn't easy, just as finding RFA candidates is tough. It's always seemed to me like new users have to find Commons on their own and get into it from a personal interest rather than being directly brought into the project. I would think making Commons more visible and attractive in different ways would be the best method of finding new photographers, but that kind of thing isn't something I'm really up on. It's definitely a rare thing to find highly skilled photographers like you, David, Poco, etc, who are willing to release beautiful high-quality images under acceptable Commons licenses. Probably comparable in difficulty to finding skilled programmers like Rillke and Magnus and keeping them interested. This is one of the chief attractions of F2C transfers - the chance to gather up images that are of a higher quality than a person doing the transfers is capable of generating on their own. As for extinction, I'm sure we can stave that off with our core group of obsessive Wikipedia addicts like myself. We could all spend decades just on category work... INeverCry 21:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Goodwill

In the light that The Photographer uploaded Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg using the above hotly debated Flickr2Commons uploader, and this photograph has been rated seventh in Picture of the Year, I'm asking @Natuur12: to revisit this block as a gesture of good will. Being a Friday, being unblocked might encourage them to return to productive quality contributions over the weekend. --Fæ (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No since there are no signes that he really understands what he did wrong. Please realise that I don't wish to discuss anything with you regarding this case since I find it highly unpleasant to discuss anything with you when there is a disagreement. Natuur12 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are requiring evidence of understanding, it is already on his talk page. It is a pity that you have not made an effort to reach out to him there to explain your remaining concerns. --Fæ (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see someone finally say it, Natuur12. I +1 that statement (the latter sentence, no comment on the former). ~riley (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cris9812

Cris9812 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Sock and block evasion of User:Cris 1298, re-uploading deleted files. --Achim (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked the sock indefinitely and prolonged block of master account until one year. Now I'll sort the uploads; most of them and maybe even all will be deleted. Taivo (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Léo2006

Please block and nuke the copyright violations uploaded using Léo2006 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , which is an obvious sockpuppet of Léo200614 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , who is currently blocked for six months for uploading copyright violations, and please extend the block of the original account in light of the block evasion and continued uploading of nothing but copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I was he who blocked Léo200614 for half of year and now I blocked both accounts indefinitely. I deleted all uploads of Léo2006. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Francechecco uni

Please block Francechecco uni (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations and recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked Francechecco uni for a year and deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

210.246.31.17

Please block 210.246.31.17 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  - IP sock of globally locked sockmaster Jermboy27. INeverCry 17:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked the IP for a week. Taivo (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cashtsang

Cashtsang (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - uploads copyvios/internet images only, please delete all uploads. --Wcam (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done All uploads are deleted. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Cottoneyedjoye / Hailsatan666-666

Hi, Cottoneyedjoye had basically uploaded tons of images of some child actor, Once I tagged them all under copyvio they then created Hailsatan666-666 to evade my detection and upload ... it didn't work very well!, and so they went back to Cottoneyedjoye to upload again, Cottoneyedjoye has since been indeffed however HS6 is still unblocked so was wondering if that account should be blocked before they get some bright ideas?,
I was meant to have done this weeks ago but ended up completely forgetting so apologies for that, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done 163 uploads, all now deleted. Green Giant blocked him/her indefinitely. I will block also Hailsatan indefinitely, partly for copyvios and partly for inappropriate username. All his/her contributions are deleted by others. 07:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant thanks Taivo - music appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 07:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Manoj4334

Please block Manoj4334 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for repeat copyvios (their only contribution) despite multiple warnings. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Plenihan2

Please block Plenihan2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for repeat copyvios after final warning. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk)

PaPa PaPaRoony

Please block PaPa PaPaRoony (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for repeat copyright violations after final warning. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Alena1478

Please block Alena1478 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  indefinitely for repeat copyvios after warning & block. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

File Deletion

Hello, please i want to delete the jpeg file Terry Cutler because it has not been properly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.wheatney (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 June 2016‎ (UTC)

If you mean File:Terry Cutler.jpg, I've tagged it for deletion as a copyright violation, because even though you had claimed that you created it, it was actually created by Gorini-Guillaume/Gorini Photography. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Stefana Petrovic

Stefana Petrovic (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – repeat copyvios --DCB (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked her for a week. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thallysson Luiz

Thallysson Luiz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  -- repeat copyvios Ariadacapo (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

反璞歸真

Please block 反璞歸真 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (vandal-only account) for continuing to vandalize files in spite of multiple (final) warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SHANMUGASAMYSELVAKUMAR

EdoRomanista

EdoRomanista (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  -- repeat copyvios Ariadacapo (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Didym blocked him/her for a month. I'll delete some of his/her uploads due to copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Marcio A. da S. Junior

Marcio A. da S. Junior (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  -- repeat copyvios. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him for a week. All uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Industrylabel999 and other Whiskyrum1852 sockpuppets

This request was archived without any action and wasn't even dignified with a response. Could we please not hand the project over to sockpuppeteering spammers? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I did not respond, because I am not a checkuser and cannot confirm sockpuppetry, and link to sockpuppetry investigation did not work. Correct link is en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiskyrum1852/Archive. Now I blocked and tagged them, deleted all contributions and created a category for sockpuppets. Taivo (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry about the broken link. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

WPK

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dj hira (Bangladesh Facebook Case)

Please indef block Dj hira (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (probadly a sock of Putthefjj (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ) via the Bangladesh Facebook Case. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done by Natuur12. Gunnex (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:王怡凌

王怡凌 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) : sock of User:詹奇鴻. --Wcam (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Dj hira 121 (Bangladesh Facebook Case)

Please indef block Dj hira 121 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  — obvious block evasion of sock Dj hira (talk · contribs), see 2 entries above, and Dj hira 1212 (talk · contribs) (already blocked) — via the Bangladesh Facebook Case. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done All blocked, all contributions deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Impersonation or harassment

I think this edit by calling someone "useless" is either impersonation or harassment. I tried to remove it; but was restored by the owner of the talk page. Jee 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your warning was received with a deafening round of applause. And ignored, of course. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Vijay hamal

Vijay hamal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing out-of-scope uploads and edits, user was blocked already but never communicated. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him for a year. This is his third block. Taivo (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Halleysson

Please indef block Halleysson (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (copyvio-only account) for evasion of block of Thallysson Luiz (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + continuing to upload similar copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings (including license fakes via unrelated license templates). Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ktpna

Please indef block Ktpna (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for evasion of block of Jaya8022 (talk · contribs) + Jayashankar4266 (talk · contribs) + continuing to upload similar copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Details at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ktpna = exif deleter & manipulator, Panoramio grabber, file photoshopper & cropper + Flickrwashing, sockpupperty, etc. Gunnex (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him indefinitely. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sangalaayush

Adding Indopug123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  as well. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Kenneth davon coles

Please block Kenneth davon coles (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for continuing to upload similar copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Uziel302 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Marcoantoniohurtado again

Marcoantoniohurtado (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  has made exactly zero (0) useful contributions to this project in two years. All edits have consisted of spam, vandalism, out of scope content, copyright violations, out of scope content and spam, or vandalism and spam. He is blocked until December on Spanish Wikipedia and indefinitely on Meta for spamming. He has been blocked twice on Commons (one month and three months, respectively), but stubbornly refuses to get the message and continues to charge ahead with out-of-process recreation of content previously deleted according to consensus. I understand that we like to give people lots of chances, but can we please just give up on this one? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  •   Done He was blocked for three months, three months ago... He's back. I blocked him again, please let me know if he fails to heed this, his last short-term block. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Jermboy27 IP sock

Jermboy27 has been editing with 210.246.31.17 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for 10 days. Can we get a 2 week or 1 month block? INeverCry 06:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Next day after expiring of old block he continues. I blocked him for a year. Taivo (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Taivo. I remember one IP he used on and off for five years or so... INeverCry 18:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:剎那

剎那 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - uploads copyvio after block. Please indef block. --Wcam (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done for one month. If he reuploads copyvios again, then it would be an indefinite block. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cezar teodosiu

Cezar teodosiu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - After a one-week block last winter, this user has returned with even more massive uploads of copyrighted material.—Andrei S. Talk 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done (one year because he is not regular active here, otherwise the block won't be preventive). --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

user:Ángel leonardo ocampo

Ángel leonardo ocampo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – copyvio-only account --DCB (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

user:Youmebelike

Youmebelike (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – repeat copyvios --DCB (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

user:Miguel Godoy Ramos

Miguel Godoy Ramos (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – copyvio-only account --DCB (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Tuvalkin

Request to unblock: Every user has the right to edit his own userspace pages as he likes to do, so by definition a user can't be blocked for "Edit warring after warnings" on his own userspace pages! a×pdeHello! 06:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you mind to read Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages and en:WP:AVOIDABUSE in "see also". Do you still arguing labeling someone as "useless:" is acceptable per "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits." (Applicable to the other request by you below.) Jee 07:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You still didn't got the point: The blocking reason was "edit warring" - not "label/attack people" and that's all I was talking about! Regards a×pdeHello! 18:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Although User:Jkadavoor already read about it in my user page, let me leave it here that I didn’t notice the replacement of "User:" with "Useless:" as done by User:Useddenim and presumed he had merely transfered his and User:Colin’s interchange from his talk page (I saw Useddenim’s quote in diffview, not rendered on the page, where the tell-tale red link would have been obvious). If User:Jkadavoor had replaced "Useless:" with "User:" (which I eventually did myself, and would have done if I had noticed it soon enough), I’d have never reverted his reversion, and would have even thanked the edit, regardless of the sympathy I have for each involved party: Should it had been affecting other user than Colin, or should have been used any other word, derrogatory or otherwise, to replace the namespace preffix "User:", my reaction would have been exactly the same. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well explained and I think that's why Christian unblocked you. Why I didn't maintain the text by simply editing "Useless:" with "User:"? As I explained in your talk page, 1. You already stated Colin is not welcome to comment on your talk and you will request an interaction ban in future. 2. That may be the only reason why Colin posted at User:Useddenim's talk where he can respond in future too. 3. While moving that to your talk, he made Colin noway defend himself. So as you vaguely mentioned, the only reason you tried to restore that content is to prove I interfere on your talk page "for no good reason". You were wrong as I had no bad intentions. (Here my response was to User:Axpde who is making foolish arguments again and again to defend his foolishness.) Jee 12:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Jkadavoor, I understand now why you thought it was better to remove the defaced transcript than to correct it. Allowing it in view of my unwillingness of giving my talk page as a venue for Colin’s comments and replies was not an easy decision, and I’d prefer that it would remain in Useddenim’s talk page, but since he decided to move the transcripts into my talk page from his (where Colin is likewise unwelcome) and since the subject of the exchange was me, it seemed to be the least bad thing to do. My reading of your edit, «for no good reason», was indeed negative, but not as much as you presume above — my thoughts were then (as they are now) merely in the vein of «But these guys have nothing better to do?»; I’m glad that there were no bad intentions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Tuválkin. It seems I got a new friend in Rani's memorial eve. Have a nice time! Jee 16:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Useddenim

Request to unblock: I can hardly find any "Intimidation/harassment" in his questionable edits as stated in the block comment! a×pdeHello! 06:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose as the administrator who blocked the use, he was clearly offensive by calling someone "useless" instead of "user", he have no regrets, and has still not aware of having done wrong, he is also responsible for the mess caused on User talk:Tuvalkin and of the block of Tuvalkin. At least when blocked he can't do it again, that is the purpose of the block. I changed the block to 1 week instead of 2 but I wonder if such generosity is deserved. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your explanation, but I sill haven't found the precise edit, in which Useddenim used "useless" instead of "user". I admit, that I would also feel offended when reading [[useless:axpde]], but I need the whole context to judge whether a block of two or one weeks is the appropriate answer to his action. Regards a×pdeHello! 18:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is this edit Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Ahhh, now I found it! I used to only look through the page text, not the source code :-(
    Hmmmm, at least he used "useless" invisible for those like me only reading the normal page text, and that's why it's possible that his excuse, this was only meant not to ping [[user:colin]] might apply. On the other hand, there are definetely better ways to do so (e.g. with the <nowiki>-tag as I did). Still I try to balance out what's the appropriate manner to deal with this. It's no "obvious intimidation" so a shorter block might be sufficient as well. At least Useddenim should promise not to repeat such a "ping masking"! Regards a×pdeHello! 20:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protection for File:JRW Shinkansen Series 700 B9 sets.jpg

File:JRW Shinkansen Series 700 B9 sets.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Requesting Semi-protection for a few weeks or even months, as an IP-hopping anonymous editor repeatedly changes details in the description despite warnings. --DAJF (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jkadavoor

In this edit User:Jkadavoor insults me by "... is making foolish arguments again and again to defend his foolishness". Since I'm involved (obviously ... ;-) I request an administrative address and to block User:Jkadavoor for harassment. Regards a×pdeHello! 09:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is more of a COM:AN/U than here? — regards, Revi 13:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Wanting someone blocked for telling the truth? Unbecoming of an admin and your behaviour is hypocrit. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all your personal view of what is truth or not doesn't count.
Furthermore if I had said you act like an ... it would have been the truth and harassment. And the block is not for telling the truth (or whatever you regard being the truth) but simply for the harassment! a×pdeHello! 18:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Axpde: Please moderate your language and stop overusing "!", it is rude (someone else has told it to you yet!). And please stop calling unwelcome comments harassment. Please read COM:MELLOW. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: A user uses "useless" masked in source code of a user take page - i.e. unvisible at the first glance on a lowly frequented page - and soon got blocked for two weeks.
Another user calls me "foolish" on a highly frequented page, and you just call it "unwelcome comments"? You obviously have double standards!
Btw.: In my edit above I used the exclamation mark once and you stante pede rebuked me for this, but in the following comment you used the exclamation mark once yourself. A second prove of double standards. My reading tip for you: http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-3.htm ... a×pdeHello! 20:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is a fact that your comments don't follow the rules of logic. This has nothing to do with who is right or wrong but everything with you demonstrating incapability to argue properly which means that the "foolish" comment is correct. And if you can't see the difference between Jee's critisme and what Useddenim did you should retire from every discussion regarding the behaviour of others. Natuur12 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh and if someone would say I acted like an idiot/retard/dick/etc I am not being harassed but being criticised. Natuur12 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protection for File:Global_European_Union.svg

Requesting full protection for this file, as it is the map of the European Union. This file has been changed repeatedly without cause. The UK is still part of the EU and until that changes, the file should remain the same. Other pages have been protected, but the map has not. Erikeltic (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There are a few pages I've noticed being changed since the UK referendum. A lock-down so overwrites are admin-only for a few days on the pre-vote versions makes sense, just to encourage users to ask questions on the talk pages. The reason for these overwrites seems misunderstanding about what the vote means, rather than any political views or deliberate vandalism.
Reminder - anything serious should pop up on SignificantReverts. --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I did post something on the talk page with a citation to what the vote means and what the next steps are. You completely correct that people don't seem to understand what the vote means. Thank you for your efforts. Erikeltic (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This is quickly turning into an edit/ revert issue with another editor. Erikeltic (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Danke! Erikeltic (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

GranTurismoLA

Please block GranTurismoLA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for evasion of block of DisneylandCA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  + continuing to (re-) upload similar copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Axpde

  • He unblocked Tuvalkin, by saying "every user has the right to decide on his own userspace, thus he can't be blocked for EW on his own page!" then I reblocked him as this is true until there is not an offensive content in the talk page and a clear warning not to do so. This unblock have not been discussed and I disagree. If there is no consensus from several other administrators for an unblock, I'm not going to do a block war regarding Tuvalkin with Axpde and I can block him, an administrator, as well. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the validity of the block, your reinstatement of it without consultation is wheel warring and a misuse of tools. Your threat to block Axpde, without any attempt at discussing the facts or reasons is inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Commons Commons:Blocking policy, says "To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block.". So Axpde's actions are against our blocking policy. The en:wp definition (which our policy has linked to for many years) says "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus." So our policy is clear that Axpde should not have lifted the block because there is no consensus to do so. But then warring over the block is unwise. We at least now have a notice that there's a contentious block here. Our Commons:Talk page guidelines do not permit users to edit war in order to add/restore insulting messages on their talk pages. Therefore Axpde's rationale for unblocking is not supported in policy. -- Colin (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand that there is currently a heat wave going through most of Europe, however could I ask everyone to cool down a bit, please. @Axpde's unblocking of Tuvalkin was out of policy, but your re-blocking of him constitutes wheel warring. Your threat of blocking Axpe is a violation of WP:INVOLVED (a widely-cited and accepted longstanding Wikipedia policy), and your starting this thread without calmly discussing the matter with Axpde is also a violation of our custom to first try solving misunderstandings between users on user talk pages before heading for community-wide noticeboards. This is all by-the-by anyway (and I'm not blaming you for anything either), but let's just keep in mind that there is no need to block anyone over this at the moment. odder (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, not the comment by Tuvalkin or possible misunderstanding is the point here, but the clear disrespect Axpde shows to sysop colleagues who act in good faith and try to keep Commons as friendly to authors as possible. That's simply troll protection like it is common in German wikipedia. No surprise that this poor unblock was done by someone from German wikipedia, moreover by someone who is not really known for mellowness out there. By the way, interesting. I wondered how could a hardly active sysop come to this issue, but there was canvassing on their de.wp user talk by Useddenim. No idea what is the relation between both. Sort of meatpuppetry perhaps? Anyway, very poor behaviour. --A.Savin 00:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Well noted. Thanks A.Savin. See Axpde's comment at User talk:Useddenim too. Better he resign himself accepting his ignorance on Commons's policies and apologize for being acted per cross-wiki canvassing. Jee 02:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You still ignore that I didn't unblock User:Useddenim who asked me to have a look at the circumstances of his block. I tried to understand what happened and asked User:Christian Ferrer to explain his behaviour - according to commons policies. But I also found no valid reason (no "edit warring"!) to block User:Tuvalkin therefore I unblocked him - again according to commons policies. I'm *not* ignoring commons policies and if you had read the so called "canvassing" talk you would have seen no promise to act as desired but to have a deep look at the circumstances which are very odd! a×pdeHello! 13:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Firt, when before Tuvalkin reverted me, he previously read and answer there where the word "useless" is written (and this was that thread who conduce me to the talk page), my comment is not ambiguous at all, the title of the message is "don't revert", and the message say clearly a content was offensive "the use of the word "Useless" is inappropriate and offensive". If he did not understood why I talked about the word "Useless" then he should ask before jumping happily in an edit war "Your warning was received with a deafening round of applause. And ignored, of course. " I thought first that was deliberate to keep the offensive content, that explain my first block of 2 weeks, and even if it stay a bit unclear for me, I assume good faith. Then I took account only the edit war for the duration of the block. The first block was at 19:53, 21 June 2016 and I will unblock him myself at 19:53, 24 June 2016.
The coffee is a bit harsh to say it's me who wheel warring, it is clearly not, only the first unblock is clearly wheel warring and the beginning of that, no one will put that on my back. And unless there is a proper consensus, after discussion, to unblock him, as per the policy, he will stay blocked for the duration of the block. And even if I have to fight, block an administrator or even block a bureaucrat, until I have my administrator's right the user will not be unblocked without a clear consensus. I hope that's clear because I'm ready to lose my administrator's right if necessary, I did my job and only my job, and if my job include to be reverted by warned users and by my colleagues administrators then I prefer to fight and to lose these rights. Good day. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, you are wheel warring, nobody else. Axpde may not have followed policy, policy written to avoid wheel warring occurring, but it was the response to the unblock action that was wheel warring. I identify your action as wheel warring based on the unambiguous and simple definition used on all Wikimedia projects: "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus." source
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the block and unblock (or the above seemingly tangential unpleasant allegations about Axpde which lack real evidence), once an administrator action has been reversed by a second admin, there must be consensus for further actions unless there are unusually good reasons to act in advance of discussion, for example to avoid harm based on evidence that the reverting administrator may have missed. There were no extenuating circumstances here to bypass discussion and consensus before taking further administrative actions. Discussing the facts with Axpde to justify restoring a block should have been your next step. Instead you took immediate action without discussion, and then threatened to block your fellow administrator on a noticeboard, steps which fit the above description of "combative fashion". The expectation of the community that administrators never indulge in wheel warring is fundamental to the requirement on you to work constructively with others per COM:Administrators, it may be that Axpde did fail to work constructively or comply correctly with blocking policy, but it is certain that your actions have been to escalate and wheel war. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Though I do understand why Christian Ferrer acted this way. Every admin who had a blocked overturned with a poor motivation by an admin who didn't follow the policy probably knows how frustrating this can be. Every time you block a user which is not your every day vandal you put your neck on the line, especially at a project with a tough political playing field as Commons. (Influences from other wiki's are clearly notable) @Christian Ferrer: I think it is time to step down from this discussion. Escalating this situation wil only make things worse and admins blocking admins over the use of admin tools will create a very dangerous situation and a really unsafe working environment. Only a few fights are really worth fighting and even less are worth losing your tools over. Even if you are ready to lose them, there always is collateral damage and disruption if this happens. Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My2ct:

  1. I am totally uninvolved in this topic. Ok, Tuvalkin & Useddenim are co-workers in the BSicon project, but we're no "buddies" or alike, sometimes we have completely different opinions stated by kibibytes of project talk pages.
  2. I read all edits of Tuvalkin & Useddenim during the questionable time and hardly found any reason Christian Ferrer gave in his blocking comments (consisting only of the words "Intimidation/harassment" and "Edit warring after warnings").
  3. Furthermore on *this* page there wasn't any talk about those blocks and there was no other talk page where Christian Ferrer explained his blocks.
  4. In "obvious cases" I'm entitled to unblock a user, that's stated in the policy ... and a user editing his *own talkpage* is definetely no EW! See Special:Contributions/Tuvalkin, he only edited his own talkpage!
  5. In all other cases an admin has to consult the blocking admin and give him time to answer: I did so (with ping) but Christian Ferrer ignored my request to unblock Useddenim!
  6. To crown it all Christian Ferrer now reblocks Tuvalkin, incriminates me of "block warring" and threatens to block *me*!

Something is rotten in the state of Denmarkcommons! a×pdeHello! 06:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • No opinion regarding the block but any admin unblocking anyone with such a ridiculous reason should just resign his/her tools. Also he/she clearly shows that he doesn't understand core policy. What we have here is an involved admin coming to the rescue of two users he works with in a project after a canvassing post at de-wiki. All together this is a huge red flag. @Axpde: : please resigne your tools. The thing we don't need is admins who don't know our policy's and have a line of thought that facilitates the harassment of editors. Natuur12 (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, also. Please stop overusing the exclamation mark. It is rude and pushy. Natuur12 (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Natuur12, you really think it's ridiculous that a user editing his own userspages shouldn't be blocked? Sorry, but that's ridiculous! Please reflect the blocking reason was edit warring and no other reason! All pages in your own userspace is your private area where the user and only the user is allowed to decide which edit is ok and which isn't - as long as no other user is concerned. In that case that user could be blocked because of intimidation/harassment, but this wasn't the blocking reason given in the block comment! Ergo this block was wrong and will not resign just because you think I'm wrong.
      Once again, I'm not involved in this topic, neither Tuvalkin nor Useddenim are close friends of mine and I acted strictly according to commons policy:
      1. I unblocked Tuvalkin cause the stated blocking reason did not apply (see above).
      2. I did not unblock Useddenim (who pinged me to investigate those blocks) but rather asked Christian Ferrer to explain his block of Useddenim (as demanded in the policy) ... he didn't answer my edit and started this thread instead.
      3. IMHO Christian Ferrer should ask himself whether he knows enough about his sysop duties. a×pdeHello! 18:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Given your reply I wonder if you even looked at the context of the block. You cannot decide if a block is valid or not merely based on the often incomplete (space is limited) summary in the block log. You also overlooked that the user was warned and declined the warning willingly taking the risk to be blocked. And yes, you are involved. If I would come to the rescue of an NL-wiki user after a reply at NL-wiki surely it will count as me being involved. Doesn't mean I can't give an opinion but is does mean I should not unblock the user myself. Same goes for users you work closely (or close enough) with on a project at Commons.
  • We have rules for the own namespace and talk pages of users. Following your logic we shouldn't be able to delete blatant spam just because it is located in someone's own namespace. I am going to repeat my request, please resign your tools asap. Jee mentioned that you should resign, Steinsplitter, a fellow admin stated you should resign. It is not like you are really using your tools anyways. And no, Christian Ferrer should not step down. He demonstrates that he understand our core policy's every day by working hard and doing a proper job. And while he is reflection on his actions you still refuse to acknowledge what you did wrong. Please note that A. Savin, a third admin also mentions that you acted poorly. Natuur12 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Christian I am sure you acted in good faith and are correct that the unblock was against policy (and it now appears was motivated/canvassed). Our own blocking policy (which I cite above) absolutely forbids Axpde from unblocking Tuvlakin. It mentions this is "to avoid wheel warring" but it isn't clear to me whether that action itself is wheel warring (with the original block) or likely to lead to wheel warring (where the original blocker restores their block, as you did). I suspect it is the latter, but the text could be improved. Wikipedia's definition is a bit wordy, but does indicate that the wheel warring occurs when an admin revert is then itself reverted without discussion/consensus, which is what you did. In a way, this is similar to the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" practice on Wikipedia. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not the first revert of a change to an article, but the subsequent reverts that occur without discussion. So I'm afraid you were wheel warring when you restored the block, but I do believe you were acting in good faith (and so wouldn't support any further action be taken). You certainly not the only admin who has ever done this, so don't feel too bad about it. Perhaps our policies could be made clearer, and perhaps we should not be relying on Wikipedia for a definition.
Odder, you criticise Christian for not discussing with Axpde before coming here. That may be valid for AN/U but this is the "Blocks and protections" noticeboard and Commons:Blocking policy encourages the use of this board for discussing controversial blocks. Arguably any block that has been reverted is controversial. Policy also requires consensus to lift a block. It is very difficult to reach consensus between two individuals with polar views on a heated topic (blocking) therefore I think the wise thing is to immediately open the controversial block up for the community to discuss and reach consensus. Christian could have worded his post here better, but I don't think we should criticise him for creating this section as soon as his block was deemed controversial. -- Colin (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not a good English speaker and maybe it's me who wheel warring, I'm not going to play with the words and with the wording of the policy. However the unblock was invalid and if someone want to discuss this block then, as it is written in the policies, he have to open a discussion here, like I did. The block is small, 3 days, we are at more than the half of the duration, and if an administrator unblock before and speak after, I don't see any utility to have this policy. As Natuur12 pointed it well "it is time to step down from this discussion", but I still don't see why this block is not valid, the content was offensive, the user have been warned not to revert because of that, and he jumped alone in the edit war. And once the things cleared a bit, he wrote this, this is at least very confusing if it is not a bit hostile. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I unblocked the user. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I just returned from my work and I give here some explanations : I precise I unblocked the user because 1/I AGF when he say he did not notice the first time the word "useless" despite my clear warning 2/the block is now clearly becoming useless, you notice the proper use of the word this time, as the user is not edit warring again 3/ if he has widely contributed to make this complex situation by jumping on the revert pushbutton as soon as he saw my name, Tuvalkin has now plenty suffers the consequences of his impulsiveness. I'm sorry he sees me or some of my friends as enemis but I do not feel guilty about this, nor it will prevent me to do my administrator job even in his talk page if I judge it necessary. Regarding User:Axpde, fortunately he, nor another administrator, did not unblocked again the blocked user before me. I can easily vote for a de-adminship if someone wants to initiate it, but after my work day I do not have the courage or real time to initiate it myself. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for a desysop request

OK, as this discussion otherwise going nowhere and Axpde is not willing to apologize for their uncollegial behaviour with an out-of-process unblock based on a private request on German WP, and furthermore considers it necessary to add more fuel to fire in the same issue, I would say let's decide here if we want to start a COM:DESYSOP vote. --A.Savin 13:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

What?!?
  1. My unblock was not uncollegial, I acted according to the rules because User:Tuvalkin got blocked with a blocking reason that wasn't correct.
  2. It was was not User:Tuvalkin who pinged me on dewiki, it was User:Useddenim which I didn't unblock. I contacted the blocking admin, he didn't answer but started this witch-hunt!
  3. User:Useddenim got blocked for two weeks because he used "useless" in source code of a user talk page which is very lowly frequented. - User:Jkadavoor on the other hand calls me "foolish" on this very highly frequented page and you say I "add more fuel to fire"? That's outrageous!
  4. Please note that User:A.Savin is biased in this case, on several occasions he outrightly showed his resentments to me. Don't know why ... a×pdeHello! 21:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Axpde: If I was biased, I would have called for your desysop already in my previous comment, which is not the case. Everything was fine if you had apologized to Christian, but no, after your arrogant answers, it is clear to me that I don't trust you. --A.Savin 00:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking through your history your former name "S1" rang a bell. Of course you are biased, just have a look at your edits at dewiki! a×pdeHello! 13:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Facts from Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

Administrators can "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted

– that's what I did and explained frequently!

Common reasons include: [...] or there was a clear mistake.

– User:Christian Ferrer blocked User:Tuvalkin for "edit warring" and gave no further explanation at all. All this user did at this was editing his own user talk page. So for me as an uninvoled admin this block by that reason was a clear mistake.

Unblocking will almost never be acceptable:

  1. When it would constitute wheel warring.
  2. To unblock one's own account (unless an administrator blocked themselves).
  3. When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy and there is no ArbCom authorization or "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)" (Arbcom motion).
  1. The first unblock is not "wheel warring", but second block was!
  2. Doesnt' apply.
  3. Doesnt' apply.

Facts from en:Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

– None of those apply in my case. I have no conflict of interest at all hence I haven't came across User:Christian Ferrer or this topic before. I just tried to have a neutral view at this quarrel but I fear there's no neutrality left on this page :-( a×pdeHello! 13:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support Sadly, it seems Axpde has no idea on what is wrong with his actions and ongoing responses from him. Natuur12 well explained to him we can't find the block reason from the small note alone. In most cases, admins or people reverting an insulting edit will not quote the exact word as it maybe more insulting when highlighted. Anybody who has a doubt can contact the blocking admin that not happened from Axpde's side. Even after several explanations, he is not willing to accept his mistake; throwing the blame to Christian and me. Note that when he unblocked User:Tuvalkin, s/he had already accepted that s/he will not restore that offensive content if noticed. After that Christain reduced the block to 3 days. Axpde's action was in the midst where an ongoing conversation is going on. This is a terrible disrespectful, careless and foolish action from Axpde's side for which he need to be apologized. But he still trying to justify himself throwing dust to all desperately trying to educate him. Indeed, I will not feel tired in educating him again and again as my duty to help my colleague. But I will not support he keeping his admin bit until he shows a willingness to learn, at least. Jee 04:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, but IMHO a block is the ultima ration and should be well justified. Therefore the blocking comment should provide the exact reason for blocking and if not capeable of the whole reason a link to where this block is justified. But there was no hint at all! I read everything Christian Ferrer wrote at this time and there was no hint to "harassment" or "reverting to harassment" or whatever you are *now* explaining. Ergo this block was not justified! a×pdeHello! 13:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK Axpde, I'm taking note that you don't want to apologize and still playing this ridiculous "all ghost drivers" game. I really don't know what you've found against me in your difflinks from 2007 or so, and I don't care either. Since any further discussion with you is just useless and your arguments nothing but ad hominem, I'm now going to start a desysop request against you. Should me+Christian+Steinsplitter+Natuur12+Geagea+revi+Jee all be wrong and the rest of the community still trust you, then it is pure formality anyway and a waste of my precious time; so don't worry, be happy. --A.Savin 13:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done Commons:Administrators/Requests/Axpde (de-adminship). --A.Savin 14:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Colin

At the request of Jkadavoor I am taking this to AN/B. Two and a half days ago, I applied a three day block to Colin. Colin has not asked to be unblocked. Several users have complained about the block on this talk page and Jee suggested bringing it to AN/B for additional discussion. I have provided all information on Colin's talk page (to keep it in one place) but if Jee thinks it needs to be here too, I have no problem with that. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ellin Beltz for following the formalities when the block is challenged. As two people mentioned on Colin's talk, the mail and talk access are also blocked; so no point is waiting for his unblock request. So I think an uninvolved admin will handle this case considering others opinion here and/or on his talk page. meanwhile the block may end up as three days already passed but we can mark the history as whether or not this block is valid. Jee 16:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder Jkadavoor. Thanks to Christian Ferrer who fixed my mistake in the block settings. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, there is a long history of conflict on Commons, which includes numerous accusations of homoiphobia, of meatpuppetry for a banned user, and many things more. And in this nasty conflict, (at least) TWO users are involved. I'm not sure if blocking in this current situation would really help to solve the issue and mellow out for the participants; but at least it should have been a block for both participants. Blocking only one of them is unprofessional and unnecessary. I recommend to lift the block. Thanks --A.Savin 16:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI, there is a discusion about this problem on Colin talk, where multiple users have expressed dissatisfaction with such action taken by the admin. --The Photographer (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have received email from Colin this morning. He did not request to be unblocked. I feel the remainder of the correspondence is private as there was no statement that it should be otherwise. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I think there is some difference between "He did not request to be unblocked" vs. "He requested to remain blocked / to be blocked for longer", and if only the former applies, this block should be lifted nonetheless (even though most of the time is already served). --A.Savin 20:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Colin asked me to be block him indef by email and given what he stated I believe it would have been highly unfair not to grant this request. He can always be unblocked if he wants to of course. Natuur12 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
OK then it's of course resolved here. Sorry that it has had to come so far. --A.Savin 20:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In the email this morning Colin didn't ask me to block him indefinitely and he didn't ask me to lift the three day block. He said he had been asking others to block him. I didn't feel that was something which I should share; being between him and whichever other administrators he contacted. I would assume from the context of the correspondence that it was several. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bjgtjhfgjhggjnmkn

Bjgtjhfgjhggjnmkn (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  seems to be a vandalism/joke/test account (see edits & uploads). Already blocked indef on MediaWiki mw:User:Bjgtjhfgjhggjnmkn. --Achim (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him/her indefinitely, partly for bad username. Taivo (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protection for File:왕풍뎅이.JPG

I'm the owner of this image. I tried to delete this but It's too late to delete so I want to protect my image. Can I protect this?--등줄메뚜기 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, we do not protect files for that reason. — regards, Revi 13:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  Not done You are not owner of the file anymore. Nobody owns files in Commons. Taivo (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protection for File:Baculum elongatum.jpg

I'm the owner of this image. I tried to delete this but It's too late to delete so I want to protect my image. Can I protect this?--등줄메뚜기 (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  Not done per above. — regards, Revi 13:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Awritro

Please block Awritro (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) 13:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done for a month. — regards, Revi 13:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mohdsalman.air

Mohdsalman.air (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has continued to upload copyrighted files after a final warning. Please block and delete the most recent files. Choess (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done for a month. — regards, Revi 02:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jismsmit

Spambot: Jismsmit (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Érico (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Prince George (Cut).jpg

The cropped portrait of Prince George is in use in 26 Wikipedia articles across 20 different projects. It has been repeatedly digitally altered away from the original photograph, which in my view was of reasonable colour, any oversaturation probably introduced by the manual exposure used by the White House's journalist Pete Souza. I suggest protection against further overwrites, unless a clear case is made for future digital enhancements. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please protect it. The current version is perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talk • contribs) 11:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I semi-protected the file for a year, except uploading new versions, which are full protected for a year. Do you agree with that? Taivo (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
ThiefOfBagdad schould learn and follow COM:OVERWRITE, this is not his first controversial upload and not the first file which we have to protect because of him. Next time the user should be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Rangersdanger and sockpuppets

Please block the following accounts for abusing multiple accounts, continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings, recreating previously deleted copyright violations outside of process, and repeatedly abusing {{OTRS pending}} templates to delay deletion of obvious copyright violations:

For background, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Usaproduction. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Bibiem2010

Please block Bibiem2010 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . This user recently uploaded another non-free file after three previous blocks. Random86 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked Bibiem indefinitely. This is his/her fourth block, all for uploading copyvios. Bibiem failed to upload any normal file, all were copyvios without exception. Taivo (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Mohdsalman.air sockpuppet Waukesha98

Waukesha98 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  is a sockpuppet of Mohdsalman.air (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , used for block evasion and out-of-process restoration of previously deleted copyright violations. Please block the sockpuppet indefinitely and extend the block of the main account. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Both indeffed. INeverCry 07:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:For is Men

Likely sock of User:Fritella. --Achim (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Selfie shoes...never thought this sockmaster would be around so long...   Blocked and tagged. INeverCry 21:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I think, that (s)he is paid for that, that's why (s)he is so persistent. Taivo (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
They've far outlasted most of the paid spammers/services I've seen. Better than the cringe-worthy images Meepsheep used to overwrite with at least, and better than those mind numbing ceiling fans... INeverCry 07:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:Taivo on this. Nevertheless, they would soon give up.Wikicology (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI: I just blocked User:You joke indef. --Achim (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Achim. All the best.Wikicology (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Raihan 456

Raihan 456 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Probably all their uploads are copyright violations. I search in Google images and was able to tag two. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Images nuked, user warned. INeverCry 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
3 more copyvio uploads. Blocked for 1 week. INeverCry 20:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Θεσσαλονικάρα

Θεσσαλονικάρα (talk · contribs) is one more puppet of Πρώτη Σερρών, given his contributions in commons and el.wikipedia. --C messier (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked and tagged. INeverCry 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

user:Duynguyen007

Duynguyen007 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – copyvios--DCB (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

user:Glinox

Glinox (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – copyvio-only account--DCB (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

user:Eagle333123123

Eagle333123123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – spambot--DCB (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Indef'ed. — regards, Revi 10:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Shreyas R Shreyas

Shreyas R Shreyas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has constantly been uploading copyvios, has now resumed after a final warning asking to stop. —SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Awesomehood

Awesomehood (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - uploads copyvio after warning and uses sockpuppets. Please block and delete uploads. --Wcam (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him indefinitely and will delete his uploads. Taivo (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sangalaayush

Adding Indopug123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  as well. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done by INeverCry. --★ Poké95 04:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User:بلال القرغولي

For your information: I blocked indefinitely بلال القرغولي (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppet Bilal alkarguli (talk · contribs) for uploading copyright violations, re-uploading content deleted by community consensus, abusing multiple accounts and block evasion. Taivo (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ajat88

Spambot: Ajat88 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) . There's been a few of these recently (see Jismsmit above). Time for an abuse filter? —LX (talk, contribs) 06:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

   Blocked. It is x-wiki spam. If there will be moor of this kind of spam we have to think about importing the filter from mw or adding some rules to existing antispam filters. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
New "customer support" spam account: Amir2k4 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) . Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done Uploads nuked, acct blocked. INeverCry 20:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Urgent User:Brocklee1005

Brocklee1005 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been uploading morphed images of notable people on pornographic movie stills, both images being derivatives, and using these to pursur en:BLP violations on en.wiki. Can someone please delete the images and block the user? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

ok, well received, thank you Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User Μάξιμος Μουρμούρης

Μάξιμος Μουρμούρης (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  If he wasn't a puppet, he should be blocked for extensive copyvios. --C messier (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 17:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Jumbers theare pool squash.jpeg

Please protect this file with the notice for the DR opened at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jumbers theare pool squash.jpeg included, the uploaded persistently removes it and I would hit the 3RR if I reverted it again, but I think that the user does not act out of malicious intent but has a lack of experience. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyvio. INeverCry 18:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

user:16356isLOL

16356isLOL (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – repeat copyvios--DCB (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, and will watch the account in case of further copyvio uploads. INeverCry 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Simpleshow foundation

I don't know if there is a problem here or not. It just seems strange to me that an indef blocked user is active.

Here it would appear that user "Simpleshow foundation" is indef blocked. Here, that user has uploaded (yet another) video -- on 10 March 2016. (Most but not all of that user's videos are Here.)

--Hordaland (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Your block of this account was reversed [3]. Can you review this? INeverCry 19:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Muzaffarnagar2Mathura

Muzaffarnagar2Mathura (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is the latest sock of Jhony jhony ha ji (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . I've blocked on en.wiki, copyvios have to be deleted here and the account blocked. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 19:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyrights once lasted 56 years

Copyrights once lasted 56 years (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user continues to upload non-free images that are used on en:WP. All of them get deleted here and removed from the WP article in question (example edit summary which describes them as "persistent in uploading copyright violations"). Their talkpage is awash with warnings on here. Note I raised this at WP:ANI and was signposted here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked as a serial copyvio uploader. All but a handful of their several hundred uploads have been deleted. INeverCry 19:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Lugnuts (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Vandalism

The accounts listed below belongs to the same user, and continue to upload non-free images:

It was checked by checkuser on zhwp. --GY Fan★ 10:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done The first 3 accounts are now blocked. 使用人 isn't registered on Commons. Are you sure the spelling is right for that account? INeverCry 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this account has not logged into commons yet. Thanks for the help. --GY Fan★ 02:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Snehahurrain

Please block Snehahurrain (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-month block. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Marvikso

Please block Marvikso (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload copyright violations over the course of many years in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dibashthapa

Please block Dibashthapa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Kannada Club

Please block Kannada Club (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Northerncalifornian & Abilicom

It would appear that Northerncalifornian (talk · contribs) & Abilicom (talk · contribs) are editing at nearly the same time and from nearly same POV at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bohemian_Club&action=history, as well as uploading duplicated images here at Commons, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:David Gelsinger at Bohemian grove Medicine Lodge circa 2011.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:DAVID GELSINGER IN THE BOHEMIAN GROVE.pdf. All edits are POV regarding some lawsuit and its exhibits. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done I've blocked both as single purpose accounts. Commons isn't the place to air personal legal issues. INeverCry 16:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Deepanshu1707

Deepanshu1707 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues to upload copyvios after an end copyvios warning and multiple images being deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 05:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 1 week, copyvios deleted. INeverCry 05:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Carloskolitsis

Please block Carloskolitsis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 08:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Laberkiste

Hello, Please re-block Laberkiste for violating the topic ban, which has been set by @~riley: . Laberkiste is banned from "patrolling files, nominating them for deletion or speedy deletion as well as their related areas." It has been violated here, the speedydeletion was controversial and has been converted to a regular DR. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the topic ban had expired already. -Laber□T 16:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done - Blocked indef, violation of Commons:Editing restrictions. ~riley (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

DroconosDragon

DroconosDragon (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  appeared on en.wikipedia to reupload a bunch of copyrighted images from a video game. I believe this is a sockpuppet of the globally blocked user GabrielPintabona (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Can an admin please block the sockpuppet, delete the long list of images that were uploaded, and all of the pages they are now creating? I didn't want to tag all of the images for bad licensing, so I figured I would ask here. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Atjp2

This account Atjp2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user exhibits a weird contribution pattern. There are two old and legitimate uploads (A, B) and since 2015-03-04 two at least probable copyvios from tabloid press images (C, D). Account sharing, young person with complete disregard towards copyright matters or something else? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done I warned him/her. If (s)he uploads one more copyvio, then (s)he should be blocked. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

user:Marto m21

Marto m21 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continued to upload copyright violations in spite of being given a last warning. Please also consider there is a chance that Martin im21 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  who has similar contributions is the same user. --C messier (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked both of them indefinitely as copyvio-only accounts and as sockpuppet and master. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Jagoganteng

Jagoganteng (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has been uploading copyvio images in spite of multiple warnings. 153.230.18.17 14:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 1 month. INeverCry 17:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Alvis Sio

Alvis Sio (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  appears to be sockpuppet of User:Erinyu1227. Both users uploaded similar advertisements. --Wcam (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 1 month. Maybe indef if the sockpuppet suspicions are confirmed. --M0tty (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:ReadyViews

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

reuploading files despite warnings, promotional/advertising content, blocked on en:wp. --Achim (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 1 month. --M0tty (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Τάδε

Τάδε (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is one more sockpuppet of πρώτη σερρών. Please also delete all his uploads (copyvios and vandalisms). --C messier (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

And so are Τεχνήτης (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Τεχνήτης Ρομπότ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . --C messier (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 17:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

INeverCry, one more: ΟΑΣΘ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . --C messier (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:ΟΑΣΘ

ΟΑΣΘ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , one more puppet by Πρώτη Σερρών. --C messier (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Τούρτα (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , the same. --C messier (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Andopug

Andopug (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is the latest copyvio sock of Jhony jhony ha ji (talk · contribs). I have blocked on en.wiki, can someone block and delete uploads here? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, files deleted and flickr account blacklisted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Porn Set 5.jpg

Please semi-protect it indefinitely as there has been no serious edit for a year. --jdx Re: 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Womansplanet

Hi, Could someone please block user talk:Womansplanet who's a sock of user talk:Maninavin, and then could someone please delete this image which is a copyvio, As you can see at the Maninavin account they've used various ways of getting around the filenames without being noticed so I don't much point in protecting it from being recreated,

I've set up an SPI case at EN too [4], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done   Confirmed as socks by CU at en.wiki. I've blocked both accts. INeverCry 17:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks INeverCry :) –Davey2010Talk 19:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Seroproduktion

Company promotion account. --178.24.131.25 12:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I was unconvinced that Commons blocking policy applied. Unlike some other wikis, Commons:Username_policy#Usernames_requiring_identification permits organization usernames under some conditions. I advised user of relevant policies and guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ShermerHS

Please indef block ShermerHS (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (copyvio-only account) for most likely being part of sock farm Category:Sockpuppets of Jvolkblum (143 socks so far), notorious for copyright violations related to New Rochelle, New York and surrounding area. Photos added by IP 72.225.168.26 on enwiki.Gunnex (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Uppsss.. already   Done by Steinsplitter :-) --> thx! Gunnex (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User Προσευχή

Προσευχή (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  is one more puppet by Πρώτη Σερρών, uploading copyrighted or useless photos. --C messier (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Sock blocked, uploads nuked. INeverCry 23:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Douglas Santos 93

Please block Douglas Santos 93 (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 an a previous block. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 05:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Kliment.A.K. and Kinno Angel

User:Kliment.A.K., please block, it's a sockpuppet of User:Kinno Angel. —ぽてから (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Foli37

Please indef block Foli37 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for uploading copyright violations on base on faked Flickr reviews or enwiki transfers. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 19:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User Εγνάτιος

Εγνάτιος (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  one more sock puppet uploading copyvios and duplicates. --C messier (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I second that, I had just spent some time searching out this one's photos and found many copyright problems. But because I nominated so much of his stuff, I think a different admin could close it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done Sock blocked, uploads nuked. INeverCry 19:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

JohnLloydScharf

User uploaded an attack image aimed against Muslims. Can you please block this user?--100.36.171.168 20:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

MarcLAUREN78

Hello. The user MarcLAUREN78 has been violating copyrights even after the user's final warning. Can you please block this user?--100.36.171.168 16:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 16:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:RG654321

RG654321 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has continued to upload copyrighted images after the previous block. 153.163.26.186 19:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Henriquepcdo

Please block Henriquepcdo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (copyvio-only account) Rssäl₰ 20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Uploads nuked, user blocked. INeverCry 20:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

user:Γυαλί

Γυαλί (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  one more sockpuppet by Πρώτη Σερρών. --C messier (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Sock blocked, uploads nuked. INeverCry 17:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: , Μασούτης (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  one more sockpuppet by Πρώτη Σερρών (and also a company trade name). --C messier (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Philippines

Has a username which makes it seem affiliated with the Filipino Wikipedia, which is a username violation.--100.36.171.168 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Soft blocked so they can create a new account. INeverCry 17:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

ENESHISIM

Please block ENESHISIM (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (copyvio-only account) Rssäl₰ 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Romania

I reported a break of the law of Romania and the heraldic tradition related to the Coat of Arms of Romania, the user who made the arm, is not active so many people are socked that i could undo his version and don't let me fix the problem, regardless of the arguments i bring, sources.

I think that they have no heraldic background because they tell me that my colors are „horrible, shit”, just because there are a bit different in the shade. But, i used just tinctures found in https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couleur_(h%C3%A9raldique) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tincture_(heraldry), and they fail to quote the article who say what kind of blue, what kind of black.

Please check the talk page, i really respected the law and the heraldic colors. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Romania.svg. I could translate the law if you want, i am tired of explaining to every user, so i ask for some kind of protection, even a temporary block for the ones who say„ this colors are shit, i don't like them” without giving good reasons. The annex of the law have some different shades, but is printed, is not the law, is just a guide for the form. http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/docs/2016/pl030_pr030_16.pdf. Best regardsViuser (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I ask to check the file, because the author imposes us your file. Allegedly, the color does not matter. The color of the coat of arms - this is important no matter what is written in the law about the admissibility of shades. For some people it pointed out the fallacy of these actions. I'm not saying to remove because I do not like the color, but because he is wrong! The law clearly shows a picture of the new coat of arms, having the same azure color as the previous. And replace it with a poisonous blue - unacceptable! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Romania_(1992-2016).svg?uselang=ru --RustamAug (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
15 changes per yesterday and today. I protected File:Coat of arms of Romania.svg fully for 1 week so that the edit-warriors have the opportunity to calm down and find a discussion in which perhaps some others are involved too. --Achim (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
So, you protected the version of the coat of arms who is against the law and against heraldic colors and is an original research at best? I very weird because there are no arguments using the law text and the accepted heraldic colors, and I do not see them make points on this.I brought sources, reasons, i debated, i cannot debate „filthy blue”, „poisonous blue”, i am not a child to be mad on colors. I give up, this is not debate is „ i don't like the blue”. My post is more older, i raised the problem in 29 May 2015 on the talk page, nobody had an answer.
For sure i am not the warrior, i waited 1 year, i raised the problem on wikipedia Ro, there was no interest. But, when i tried to fix the problems i get this reverts. My post on the talk page.
Trebuie să faci schimbări la stemă[edit]
Stema dv. nu respectă nici o culoare heraldică, nu respectă legea, este o lucrare proprie înfrumuseţată. Este o lucrare bună, însă dacă nu o modificaţi conform legii şi culorilor heraldice este o emblemă proprie. http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=13190
Your work do not respect a single heraldic tincture, don't respect the laws of Romania, is a nice work, but you need to remake it. Otherwise it can't stay on Romania articles, it's an emblem, not a coat, and you don't have a source for it. Use sable on Moldavia, Transylvania, aurochs and eagle, use proper tinctures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tincture_(heraldry) Vasile iuga (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot convince people who don't understand heraldry, the author of this work is not active, sadly. So, i could bet that there will be no answers. The annex of the law is not the law, is a guide for the form and is not very different in shade, there are no 3 types of blue in heraldry, just one for the digital forms, the pure blue.Viuser (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
See m:The Wrong Version. --Achim (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
But my version was deleted, or there is the small chance that my computer is mad, so what is the point to put that label? Justice has been served.Viuser (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sgjymsd

Blease block spammer and delete/hide contributions. --Denniss (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done by Stein. INeverCry 19:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protection for 2 files

Requesting semi-protection for a period of weeks to even a few months for these two files, which have become the target for random changes by an IP-hopping anonymous editor since earlier in July. --DAJF (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done for 3 weeks. — regards, Revi 02:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:VRSOHA

VRSOHA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – spam/vandalism only account. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Indef'ed. — regards, Revi 10:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Magicdelu

Hi,

After several upload regardless authors and copyrights, the last Magicdelu action is weird:

  1. Can his version be masked?
  2. Can this user be scolded?
  3. Is the previous version useful anyway?

Thank you for your attention,
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Upload revision deleted, final warning issued to user. ~riley (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

AidenRice

AidenRice (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Copyvio uploader. He circumvented protective warnings (edit filter 153) by taking a "screen shot" (File:Ariane Bellamar.jpg) with his smartphone, thus having plausible EXIF fooling the system. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  Not done Is there something I'm missing or are you administrative time intentionally? This was their first upload and first warning, there is nothing here for an admin to do. ~riley (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@~riley: I am aware that the upload was the first contribution from this account, and normally, I wouldn't have bothered at all making a report here, the deletion would have been enough. But I thought that I saw some aggravating circumstances, an user intentionally bypassing blocking warnings generated by the software which would be enough to conclude "malevolent contributor" and blocking him, I think. Around a month ago, some colleagues developed an abuse filter to reduce the amount of unwanted files that were expected to be copyvios according to some technical features, that was the said filter 153 (I actually found this file in the blue links in its filter log). I was under the impression that the existence of EXIF data was a criterion too, but having just perused again the discussions, it seems that my memory fooled me (EXIF checks are an open feature request but not currently available). So, no intent to ssteal admin time, only too much confidence in software tricks and a "human" memory, sorry. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
For your future reference, this is not an aggravating circumstances case strong enough to warrant ignoring the block policy which states to ensure that the user has been appropriately warned. ~riley (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@~riley: I had no intention of "fooling" a system or misleading people. I used a software to crop the image which was taken from several articles on the web and none of them exhibited copyright or ownership information of the image, including not claiming that the publication had ownership of the image (i.e. Toronto Star). As such, I used this image to create a cropped down version of the subject in the photo and if you google search 'Ariane Bellamar Housewives of Toronto' you will see that the 'whole' image is of the subject in a monitor. I do not agree with this decision and would appreciate it if my input is addressed with a reconsideration of the decision. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~AidenRice — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenRice (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@AidenRice: Hello, please read COM:PCP, specifically example #4 and #5. I understand it is all over the web, and there is no claim for copyright, but that does not mean it is uncopyrighted. Cropping or adapting the image does not effect the copyright status enough to permit the file to be uploaded. Every file has copyright, the question is if the copyright license is in compliance with our policies. ~riley (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

  Resolved

Username Kabirshuklaradhe (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  created Kabiras institute of Creative Arts, in Turkish name may be common account for the institute. Cotton2 (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, other edits appear disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotton2 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is Commons and not en:wp. By now here exists neither an account of User:Kabirshuklaradhe nor did they contribute anyhow on Commons. On en:wp one can find en:Special:Contributions/Kabirshuklaradhe. --Achim (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
+1 - The account isn't registered here so therefore they're not going to be blocked, And as an aside each project is different - What they've done on one project doesn't necessarily have any bearing here, I suggest Cotton2 that you back away from this user before you yourself end up blocked. –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Machisimo wellness centers

Username that is used only for promotion.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 00:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Vinodnain

Vinodnain (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues to reupload the same copyrighted images after they were deleted and he was warned for that and given a final warning. Someone please block and nuke all uploads. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 05:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mhmrodrigues

Please block Mhmrodrigues (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of many many many many many warnings and a previous two-week block. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  blocked for a month. — regards, Revi 13:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you forgot to notify them... —LX (talk, contribs) 15:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, done. Thanks. — regards, Revi 16:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Contryfile

Contryfile (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – yet another selfie shoe sockpuppet. Please block and nuke. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

SpaceSockSuperMan

This username makes it sound like it's a sockpuppet.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked and upload deleted. Sock of Jhony jhony ha ji. INeverCry 19:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

RickSoukoulis

Another promotional username.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done blocked and nuked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Limbalee1974 yet again

Please block Limbalee1974 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  yet again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and three previous blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed. INeverCry 00:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Richasharmaa

Richasharmaa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – spambot/vandalism-only account. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done blocked indef. Contributions deleted. --M0tty (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Kharazmi official

Another promotional username.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Nominated their file for deletion, let's first wait until this user self-promoted themselves here on Commons. ★ Poké95 12:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Gottardo10

Gottardo10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – Sockpuppet of User:Storica90 aka User:Audrey22. The scope and images are the same. See as well discussion on itwiki. --Ruthven (msg) 14:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 06:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Two new promotional usernames

The users Advaitha Ventures and IntellFamily have been uploading images with the sole purpose of self-promotion. Please block both.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I nominated the pictures uploaded by both users for deletion. I'll leave blocking up to an admin.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@MetaKnight93: Neither account has been warned, and these are not mass uploads of blatantly promotional crud, but instead just single uploads of logos. Neither has any history of deleted contributions, either. I don't think either merits a block unless they actually become a problem, though they should probably be asked to rename their accounts if they keep uploading. Reventtalk 22:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Flag of Cape Town.png

Hello. This file has been re-created in multiple times by this sockpuppeteer. This flag is a Hoax and has been used for vandalism on several wikis. Please, protect for re-creation of this file. Thank you! Ks [在这里找到答案] 20:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC).

@Ks-M9: Not crazy about salting this filename, simply because it could be legitimately used, but there is indeed obviously a problem here. I opted to semi-protect the file for the next 3 months, which is longer than the issue has been going on. Hopefully this will be sufficient, if the problem continues ask again for a higher level of protection. Thanks. Reventtalk 21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's OK. I agree. Thanks Ks [在这里找到答案] 22:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC).

Musée Magnin Dijon

Promotional username for a museum has uploaded one copyright image File:Stairs of the Musée Magnin.jpg that appear to be from a French photo agency and is attributed to a photographer, plus a second unsourced image. Images might be kept of an OTRS verification is forthcoming from the copyright holder but the username should be blocked. Ww2censor (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I don't really think it's 'promotional', but it's most likely 'misleading', as I see no reason to think that the account actually belongs to the museum. Unless they can verify their identity via OTRS, they should probably be required to request a rename (or blocked). Reventtalk 21:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe not promotional per se but the implication is that they represent the museum but the images mentioned appear to not be from the museum itself. Ww2censor (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Lionelarianp

  Resolved

Lionelarianp (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – copyvio-only uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Continued to upload files with source and author as "google" after a final warning. Nuked, indefinite vacation. Reventtalk 10:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Meghabavisi

Meghabavisi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  continues to upload copyvios after many warnings, including an end copyvios warning. —SpacemanSpiff 15:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Allysonclark

Allysonclark (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – dick pill spammer. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Vishalsharmaaaa

Vishalsharmaaaa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – prostitution spammer and vandal. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Craft6789

Please block Craft6789 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to "contribute" nothing but nonsense edits, mostly outside the sandbox, in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done VOA blocked. INeverCry 18:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Malikofori

Please block Malikofori (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Rufet.Turkmen.Sefevi

Please block Rufet.Turkmen.Sefevi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block (which was extended for block evasion using multiple IP addresses and at least one sockpuppet). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mhlabauyangilinga

Please block Mhlabauyangilinga (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Gal Gadot cropped lighting corrected.jpg

User:EditsOrArticles is trying to change the image in order to "go around" a clear consensus on he wiki. That user has just been blocked on he-wiki for trying to do just that directly on Gdot's he-wiki article (and other trolling). Please protect the file and block the user (globally, if possible). Amitayzl (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done User VOA blocked, file history cleaned and protected. INeverCry 22:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  Thank you. INeverCry! Amitayzl (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

I suspect the user Nagehanhısım is a sockpuppet of Neslihanhısım due to similar out of scope uploads. Plus similar usernames.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked along with some other socks: Nerimanhısım, Nazlıhısım, Nergishısım, Nazhısım, Nalanhısım, all tagging their uploads with Category:Dizi. INeverCry 19:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Nazlibayindir, Fatihhisim, Nesrinhısım, Nazanhısım, Deryahısım are others. All of a young man with black hair who looks to be promoting himself as an actor or model. Most of the uploads are sourced to www.facebook.com/ENESHISIM. @Magog the Ogre: , @Krd: , @Elcobbola: , @Trijnstel: Can we get a check? Most or all of these socks are recent. INeverCry 20:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
A couple more: Nazlımhısım, Mügehısım... INeverCry 20:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks old friend. I'll drag my lazy ass over to RFCU next time...   INeverCry 21:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I found and blocked indefinitely Ayşegülhısım (talk · contribs), Nilüferhısım (talk · contribs) and Candanhısım (talk · contribs), tagged them and deleted their uploads. Taivo (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I just blocked Nurselhısım. Looks like we'll be seeing more of this guy... INeverCry 23:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Darca schools

This username sounds promotional. Only known upload was a logo of Darca Schools.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  Not done Merely uploading what is purportedly 'your own logo' without promotional content on the file page is not a reason for a block, though people bring such cases here often. It's when they are uploading actual 'advertising material', or putting their business contact information in the file descriptions, that it's a problem. It is reasonable to ask an account that continues to contribute over time to either verify their identity via OTRS or ask for a rename, however. Reventtalk 04:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Duke Rudra (talk · contribs)

User has been using Commons for exclusively self-promotional reasons, has ignored multiple warnings to desist. User's talk page currently carries his self-aggrandizing manifesto. KDS4444 (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Shown the door, he's had plenty of warning. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

username block

please block Alexandre Poskrebyshev (talk · contribs). and this account is already blocked at english and italian wikipedia. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked as a sock of globally locked user Akko1948. INeverCry 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Amin Hersheys

Confirmed on enwiki as a sock of globally locked user Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own. Please block.--MetaKnight93 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

IvyShields

Hi,

User:IvyShields (Special:Contributions/IvyShields) is not able to upload something else than pictures found around the web like social networks, claiming it is own work. With several already deleted files and more to come, I think he should be blocked, at least for a short time, with a convincing message.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 00:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Amazzone2

Amazzone2 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – Sockpuppet of User: Gottardo10 aka User:Storica90 aka User:Audrey22. Please block --Ruthven (msg) 09:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Reventtalk 11:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Psaji

This username sounds promotional, as well as uploading a picture on an enwiki article used only for spam.--RIP iPad 2 (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  Not done Psaji is not mentioned in en.wiki; the name does not sound promotional to me. So far (s)he has uploaded only one file and this is nominated for deletion. I think, that no action is needed now. Taivo (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

user:Duynguyen007

Duynguyen007 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – repeat copyvios --DCB (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

JUSBR

Please indef block JUSBR (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (copyvio-only account) for evasion of block of Category:Sockpuppets of Sigajefinho + faking exif. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 21:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Utilizador1987 + Mediacommons + SCR1987 + Wake-pe + Cmmns + Cabosoccer + Imageformer

Please indef block:

for evasion of block of Userwiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (per local ptwiki rcu) = sock farm Category:Sockpuppets of Userwiki + continuing to (re-) upload similar copyright violations (including exif-manipulations) in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done blocked and nuked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Galatasaray Sports Club Logo.png

Please protect it because for some reason mobile scum likes to vandalize it. --jdx Re: 07:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Please don't refer to people as scum. (looking) Reventtalk 07:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I just can't resist when 99% of anonymous mobile edits are vandalisms. BTW. Scum: informal A worthless or contemptible person or group of people. IMO this definition fits very well to mobile "editors". --jdx Re: 08:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: I can empathize, and wasn't warning you. I just dislike describing 'people', instead of their actions, that way. Reventtalk 08:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  Done Indefinitely semi-protected. IP vandalism over a period of years, for some odd reason. Reventtalk 07:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Dubious Flickr uploads after warnings

Numéro 1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Numerous uploads from dubious Flickr accounts with no license reviews after multiple warnings. Flickr is an inappropriate source for photographs made in 1940s-1970s. Looks like mass Flickr-washing. --85.140.7.158 19:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@85.140.7.158: @Numéro 1963: has edited Commons for over 7 years, and uploaded hundreds of images from a number of Flickr accounts. Despite the collection of deletion notices (that reflect that entire history) he's never been explicitly warned, that I noticed. His last deleted upload was made in April of 2015. This is probably just a prolific long-term uploader who is mainly active on other projects, who has (over the course of time) uploaded some images that turned out to have problems, not a problem user. I really don't think there are any grounds here for a block without having previously engaged the user in discussion. Reventtalk 08:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@85.140.7.158: @Revent: Hello, I think this is not my fault that the authors of some of the images I uploaded violated copyrights. And after the first warnings I stopped upload images from Flickr that made doubt (like images which look like commercials images). On the other hand, photigraphs from 1940-1970s that I upload are picked up from Creative Commons acounts (San Diego Air & Space Museum fro exemple and other institutions). Best regards. Numéro 1963talk 09:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Whats app.jpg

Please protect it, as it is yet another favourite file of mobile "editors". --jdx Re: 10:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done long term vandalism, 1 year semi-protection --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

PROGRAMERSGLOBAL

Hi,

Special:Contributions/PROGRAMERSGLOBAL: this user create useless categories for promotional purpose; his upload is an advertising. His contribution should be deleted. And, I think, he may be scolded or blocked.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done ~riley (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Protection request

Please protect following files because some moron regularly nominates them for deletion without a valid reason:

--jdx Re: 18:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done 3 months semi-protection. INeverCry 20:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Chuma Mhlauli

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Chuma Mhlauli: This user is here to promote a young rapper out of project scope, he uploads album covers probably copyrighted and put promotional text on several inadequate places.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems Christian Ferrer has taken care of this user. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

File:English Pokémon logo.svg

Please protect it because recently pokemons like to vandalize it. --jdx Re: 07:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done semi-protection for a month. --M0tty (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Alvis Sio

Alvis Sio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uploads previously deleted images after block. --Wcam (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Danielabertini, Reginagrimilde

Danielabertini (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) 

Reginagrimilde (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) 

Sockpuppets of User:Doncarloss aka User:Storica90 aka User:Audrey22 aka User:Darja82 and others; for more informations see Richieste di pareri/Comportamenti degli utenti/Doncarloss. Please block --93.147.58.38 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good night--93.147.58.38 23:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford

Please block BaronBifford (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for repeatedly recreating File:Jerry Siegel 1939.jpg and File:Joe Shuster 1939.jpg outside of process in spite of specific warnings and instructions. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 08:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I went through the hoops and request undeletion of this image but it was ignored. I'm all for respecting the system when the system is responsive. It will be a strange irony if this block request is noticed and granted. :/ BaronBifford (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You requested undeletion for one of the files before unilaterally restoring both of them. I'm sorry if you felt the unpaid volunteers didn't respond swiftly enough, but that doesn't give you the right to play by your own rules. One reason the request may be taking some time to process is that the information you provided still isn't enough to verify your claims (because a vague reference to a 2013 republication doesn't really help establish when and where and under which circumstances the photo was first published). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  Done - Jcb (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Protection request

Please semi-protect these files for a period longer than 2–3 weeks:

--jdx Re: 10:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet another protection request today

Pokemon's most wanted:

--jdx Re: 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ti Dinheiro (Kumbu 2 )(Prod-Dj P.Jack)..Showmono(990 00 17 18)

Hi,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ATi+Dinheiro+%28Kumbu+2+%29%28Prod-Dj+P.Jack%29..Showmono%28990+00+17+18%29.ogg This is the 3rd upload of this never-used probably-copyrighted track.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If File:Ti Dinheiro (Kumbu 2 ).ogg was the same file, it's the 4th time. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
File:Ti Dinheiro (Kumbu 2 ).ogg, and the 1st upload at this name, are not the same file.
The later two uploads at this name are identical files, and the second upload at this name was deleted by Krd as a copyright violation.
  Done Re-deleted, and warned uploader about re-creating files out of process. Reventtalk 12:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting page protection for File:JRW-700-hikari-railstar.jpg

Please semi-protect File:JRW-700-hikari-railstar.jpg for at least a few weeks, as it is now the target of the same IP-hopping vandal that has been randomly altering details on other shinkansen related files (see request above). Thanks in advance. --DAJF (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Hug noname

Hug noname (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - copyvio-only account. 153.230.46.60 17:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done I've given them a final warning, and will keep them on my watchlist in case they upload further copyvios. INeverCry 19:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

File:XXX P icon.png

Yet another candidate for semi-protection. --jdx Re: 23:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done That IP vandalism has gone on a for a couple years now, so I've semi-protected this indefinitely. INeverCry 23:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Google Translate Icon.png

Just look at the history. --jdx Re: 07:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Geetaescorts1

Please block Geetaescorts1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – prostitution spammer, obvious sockpuppet of Geetaescorts (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  and possible sockpuppet of Vishalsharmaaaa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) . —LX (talk, contribs) 08:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed the new one, old one probably abandoned anyhow due to a block over on en. If it pops back up, gives us another autoblock target. Reventtalk 09:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tondeknoi

User:Tondeknoi keeps uploading copyright violations despite having repeatedly been warned.--Paul_012 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Indef. Deleted everything but the logo. One copyvio uploaded 4(!!) different times. Reventtalk 10:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:WKDx417

User:PQ77wd claims that his/her previous account, User:WKDx417, is compromised (see special:diff/204175017). Should User:WKDx417 be indef blocked? --Wcam (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done I've blocked the acct and autopatrolled the new one. If anything changes with the old account, PQ77wd can request unblock, etc. INeverCry 03:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gap5200

Please block Gap5200 (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) 20:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked and copyvios deleted. Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Shingling334

User:Shingling334 has repeatedly been uploading obvious copyvios to Commons. User is indeffed in English wikipedia, but has continued to upload copyvios and used IP socks to insert them in English wiki. After their last series of uploads, I tried to explain in simple words why they should stop taking pictures from Internet and uploading them to Commons as "own work". It does not seem to have worked. I have nominated their new copyvio today for speedy deletion. Regards! --TU-nor (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 3 days and new copyvio deleted. Whatever issues may be present on en.wiki, the Commons can generally only take actions for edits/behaviour on the Commons itself. If the user continues to be disruptive or begins to sock on the Commons, let us know. Эlcobbola talk 15:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Pashtun0978

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Pashtun0978 is now known for uploading watermarked copyrighted materials. But his last one, File:Laila Khan Tunisia.jpg, may contain false declarations:

  1. I can't find it on Bollywood Hungama and the given source page is 404.
  2. I can find it on several other websites like http://twicsy.com/i/MVDfGj
  3. I can't find a proof that Bollywood Hungama has distributed some of its content under CC BY 3.0
  4. As the OTRS ticket have been added at the upload, I doubt it's the right ticket number
  5. The image was reviewed by the uploader himself and as I said at first, I can't review it

I may be on a wrong track but if all those permission declaration are false, I think this user should be blocked.

Can some one look at the facts and take a decision about what to do with this particular user?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

3 & 4: He use Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama so its OK. But, still, he reviewed himself and I still can't review it as I can't find the image on Bollywood Hungama. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  by Jcb "Copyright violation: False permission, auto reviewed, false OTRS; "Copyright © 2016 Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved." Reventtalk 15:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Range block

91.9.96.0/19 for six months, anon. only, account creation disabled. This is a dialup range, used 'almost exclusively', per a stew, by an globally banned editor, with a recently blocked sock that has been transferring files from other wikis to commons without verifying their copyright status. Simply FYI, but later checks might be needed, he is 'persistent'. Reventtalk 14:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Smiley and its files

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T143505

Highly-used template has 5847 transclusions. Please upload protect the files used in this template due to high use too. Thanks, ★ Poké95 03:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Surprising that only facepalm has any history of vandalism. That's full protected already. I've semi-protected everything else. INeverCry 04:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Uh, I think semi-protecting files from reuploads is useless since non-autoconfirmed users cannot overwrite an existing file (except on their own files). See Special:ListGroupRights, on the "Users" section, and compare it with the "Autoconfirmed users" section. Thanks, ★ Poké95 04:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
And it is easy to get autoconfirmed status anyway, so this would not protect the files against well-known vandals, like the selfie shoes vandal. ★ Poké95 04:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess it shows that I do 99% deletion and blocks...   I've changed all the protections to full. INeverCry 05:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I filed phab:T143505 to remove the ability to semi-protect files from reuploads here on Commons. I also filed phab:T143506 for enwiki. ★ Poké95 06:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Rajesultanpur

Please block Rajesultanpur (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  yet again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and two previous blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wikicology (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Zaiekr

Hi,

User talk:Zaiekr: This user re-upload one of his useless advert after being warned not to do so and threat of blockage. Please, block him as promised.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Merci Thibaut120094. Bonn'après-m', --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wikicology (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Khalils18

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Khalils18: This user uploads copyrighted videos with random informations. This is a return of User:Khalils3 already blocked by Thibaut120094.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jianhui67 for the speedy deletion of the copyrighted material and the block. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem! Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Wikicology (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:YSSbridgeapril2016.JPG (protected but copyvio)

Copyvio-tag failed due to API request failed (cascadeprotected): The page you're trying to edit is protected because it's included in a cascade-protected page, apparently via Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/fr

Please tag the file with copyvio via (example) http://www.ensonhaber.com/3-kopruden-15-bin-tir-gececek-2016-03-08.html (08.03.2016, Copyright 2005-2014 Ensonhaber.com) = http://i.cdn.ensonhaber.com/resimler/diger/2_1591_1.jpg (last modified: 08.03.2016) or grabbed from internet (or desblock the file for tagging me...)

Thx. Gunnex (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Removed from frwp & deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Vk98142

Please block Vk98142 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , who is only here to be a spammer and a charlatan. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

KageTora has passed away

Please indefinetly fully protect KageTora's user page because I have received the sad news from enwiki that he has passed away, and I want to prevent vandals from defacing the page.--Whispy Woods (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done I've full protected it from creation here, but the actual userpage content is on his userpage at Meta. You may want to request protection there. INeverCry 18:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

City flags

Please semi-protect it due to frequent vandalisms. --jdx Re: 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sanjayshivalak

Sanjayshivalak (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  is obviously only here to upload out-of-scope content, which he then vandalises English Wikipedia with. In October 2015, he uploaded File:Sanjayshivalak.png. It was deleted the same day. The next day, he uploaded File:Sanjayshivalak.jpg. That was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sanjayshivalak.jpg, and I specifically informed him about Commons' project scope. Nevertheless, he uploaded File:Sanjay yadav.jpg earlier this month and added it to a pre-existing English Wikipedia article about a completely different person that he decided to overwrite. That file was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sanjay yadav.jpg. And today, it was uploaded again. This time, he logged out before overwriting the article again. He's also got a sockpuppet on English Wikipedia, en:User:Er.sanjay yadav (no activity here). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please help to remove all wrong speed delete nomination from Szm2008

Szm2008 seems probably to be Szm020730's sockpuppet. He nominated two of my uploaded PD files, File:ROC Railway Flag (1919).svg and File:Seal of Tainan City (2014-).svg. Please help to remove these wrong speed delete nominations from Szm2008. Thanks a lot.--Akira123 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done between a couple of people... speedy kept, and sock indeffed. Reventtalk 19:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Goga1234

Please block Goga1234 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – vandalism only account. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Franklinmartinez2002

Please block Franklinmartinez2002 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  again for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous three-month block. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Innova751 and sockpuppet Logiteck1414

Please block Innova751 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  and their sockpuppet Logiteck1414 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  (and nuke their uploads) for abusing multiple accounts to continue to recreate previously deleted copyright violations (e.g. Ieei.jpg) in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tyrelia1414 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  is obviously connected as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  Done by Herbythyme. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Innova751 isn't blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, done. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  Confirmed for Innova751 = Logiteck1414. Tyrelia1414 is   Stale. No sleepers. Please use COM:RFCU in the future. Эlcobbola talk 17:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. As I'm sure you know, I do file requests there frequently. When it's this obvious, relatively few accounts involved, and there's no reason to suspect additional accounts, that process just adds too much overhead for me, I'm afraid. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Jogamp4444

Jogamp4444 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  – yet another support spammer. Nuke and block, please. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 21:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Globalvacuumproducts

Blease block Globalvacuumproducts (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) , spam-only account. Thanks. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Shingling334

Warned before, blocked before (see Archive_18 for former report). New obvious copyvio upload at File:Presidential palace Ankara.jpg, used by obvious sock on English Wikipedia one minute later. Same pattern as before. --TU-nor (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mukhlzaxc777

Please block Mukhlzaxc777 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Tōkaidō Shinkansen series 100 last run emblem.jpg and File:Tōkaidō Shinkansen series 100 last run Nose.jpg

Please semi-protect these files due to frequent vandalisms (by the same guy who vandalized other Shinkansen related photos). --jdx Re: 09:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ameily Radke.jpg

Half year semi-protection was not enough to get rid of a moron… --jdx Re: 11:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow and chase from TM

User:TM has a nasty habit of going straight when he does not like something or someone. It is not possible to produce consultation in a normal way with this person.

He makes unwanted changes to files, and repeat his actions after roll-backs.

He is now looking for all files that I'm working an, and requests removal if he just can find anything. So too edited Google and other map sites, many of which are on Commons.

I ask appropriate measures to stop the unwanted behaviour of TM. Protecting Files makes no sense because he continues to search for other possible banter. --Jos1950 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  Comment As far as I can see, TM tagged 3 files because they seem to be copyright violations. Google Maps is not a free source. Further: you claim own work, which certainly is not correct. If you took the maps from the net, so it seems, you should have added a proper source (URL). But since the original uploader of the maps didn't seem to care much about the copyright, you fell into the trap, causing your three uploads to be tagged (correctly) as copyright violations. Don't take it personally, we all make mistakes. It would be easy to recreate the maps using openstreetmaps. Want to try? You can also ask the Map workshop for help.
IMHO case closed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Crunchyboogerjelly21

User:Crunchyboogerjelly21 created a hoax on English Wikipedia, which was deleted and create protected by an admin. The user retaliated by posting the admin's LinkedIn photo to Commons, with a derogatory comment. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jesse_Gartiano.jpg. Please indef block, he's not here to help. I am going to indef block on Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done - Jcb (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quick. Fences and windows (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection for WLM 2016 in the United States

High-traffic page Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States has been receiving frequent vandalism from IP editors throughout the day; requesting semi-protection. Thanks! ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 00:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting unblocking of a user to facilitate adding of useful pictures on Urdu Wikipedia

Hello,

I am a bureaucrat on Urdu Wikipedia.

On behalf other bureaucrats and admins of Urdu Wikipedia, I would like to request the unblocking of User:Arif80s.

The user has been blocked from editing Commons because of the uploads of copyrighted materials.While some of his uploads don't meet the copyright on any Wiki projects, at least a few of the uploads which pertain to book covers/ posters could have been posted on Wikipedia instead of Commons as they fall in the category of fair use image (which commons DOESN'T approve while Wikipedia DOES).

We've interacted with this user and explained him the situation. He has assured me that he will henceforth upload pictures taken from his mobile/camera.

We therefore request you to kindly lift the block on him so that he can upload pictures taken from his mobile/camera.

In particular, his help is needed for the images relating to the articles on Urdu Wikipedia:

@INeverCry and Christian Ferrer:   Thank you. for the swift action. Please let me know on my talk page if any further problem exists.--Muzammil (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Publicity Santhosh (Uppi) and Publicity santhosh

Self-promotion only accounts. They seem to be sock puppets of already blocked Publicity Santhosh. --jdx Re: 10:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Socks blocked and uploads deleted. INeverCry 19:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WLM 2016 in Thailand

Please semi-protect and move protect the competition page and its subpages/talk pages:

These pages receive high number of views during competition month and were vandalised --taweethaも (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 07:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

WLM 2016 in …

With reference to the reports above, Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Peru for sure should be semi-protected. Single vandalisms I spotted also in:

--jdx Re: 08:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done (Is this vandalism?) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Do you mean these two edits? I saw them earlier and they look like valid edits to me. This is vandalism. --jdx Re: 14:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting page protection for File:JRW-700-hikari-railstar.jpg

Please semi-protect File:JRW-700-hikari-railstar.jpg for a few weeks or months, as the earlier IP-hopping vandal has returned following the expiry of the previous two-week protection period. Thanks in advance. --DAJF (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Иван Сафранов

Иван Сафранов is one more sock of long term spammer Alex Pechkurov. --Achim (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done. --A.Savin 11:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Blue-bg.svg

Please semi-protect the file due to excessive vandalism. Also you may consider blocking Special:Contributions/193.219.54.101. This is well known Lithuanian vandal. --jdx Re: 07:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done I semi-protected it for a year. Taivo (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Utilisateur de Monaco

Utilisateur de Monaco (talk · contribs) is one more sock puppet by Πρώτη Σερρών (talk · contribs). --C messier (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done blocked and nuked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 12:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

File:JRwest 500 nozomi 29 kodama 697 shiniwakuni.jpg

Please semi-protect it due to standard reason #1 – excessive vandalism (by well known "Shinkansen vandal"). --jdx Re: 12:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 1 month. INeverCry 22:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Swanoracle

Swanoracle (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  – sockpuppet of Kay Körner --DCB (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 19:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Missouri in United States.svg

Please semi-protect it due to excessive vandalism. For some reason mobile scum likes it very much. --jdx Re: 20:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Khankhan26

Spam-only account. --jdx Re: 07:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 07:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

TimedText:Mars.ogv.en.srt

AFAIR, a vandal has just created this file for the 3rd time today. Each time filled with nonsense, of course. --jdx Re: 17:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Protected against re-creation for 1 month. INeverCry 20:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Flag of Madeira.svg.

Can an admin please revert the file to the version by Zscout370 and protect the file? Zscout370's version is from an official document from the Government on Madeira about the proportions and colours of the flag. Fry1989 eh? 19:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done INeverCry 20:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:US Flag Backlit.jpg

Excessive vandalism. --jdx Re: 17:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done: Protected fully for 1 week because vandalising IP did register in the meantime. --Achim (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Севастополь 1

Sockpuppet of Πρώτη Σερρών, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Севастополь 1. Please nuke their uploads too. Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Taivo (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppeteer Kritkitty is back as Misr-flagarchive

Please block Misr-flagarchive (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  and nuke their uploads. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 11:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for ' ipblock-exempt' on my commons account

Could please someone add the 'ipblock-exempt' to my user account here on commons, because I'm currently travelling around and most hotel wifis' IPs are included in IP range blockings. On de.wikipedia it was already granted for me, is there a way to have this set in all wikimedia projects? Thanks, --Joschi71 (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is good user. I gave IP block exempt. Taivo (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
o_O? Currently I'm able to edit via the wifi?! --Joschi71 (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, because you are given ipblock-exempt. That's what it is for. ★ Poké95 01:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Kay Körner seems to be back as Icedsinalco this time

Please check someone whether this is another sockpuppet of him. User:Icedsinalco was registered in July 2016, is active since September 14, 2016. Busy with same topics, a bit of Dresden and Cygnus olor, much about Pirna. Thanks, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Same edit pattern, same cam. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Jagoganteng

Jagoganteng (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  This user recently uploaded another non-free file after two previous blocks. 153.206.74.198 20:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 3 months. INeverCry 22:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Shvarts 007

The user Shvarts 007 has repeatedly uploaded the same files after the files have been deleted following a community consensus. This is shown in their talk page, where files like File:Mstrb.gif have been deleted three times (deleted again without notice as I was writing this). These specific files also violate Commons:Nudity, especially COM:PORN, as I stated when they were nominated for deletion the third time. As such, I propose blocking this user. Elisfkc (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This was already   Done; see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Shvarts_007. Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I was just about to state that. Thanks for doing it and for the block. Elisfkc (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Tunisia

Excessive vandalism. --jdx Re: 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done semi --A.Savin 08:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Greeshmas

Please block Greeshmas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads)  for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Эlcobbola talk 19:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:JR Central Shinkansen 700.jpg

Excessive vandalism. --jdx Re: 11:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco.svg

According to the royal decree (I added source on page description) green color must be like the leaf of palm trees, I request unprotection in order to replace current green with #1D4716, palm leaf. —AymanFlad (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not know. Palm leaves are light green and my paper encyclopedia shows also light green star. But current flag is sourced into official royal site. Taivo (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge

Semi-protection is needed becase some anonymous moron regularly replaces File:Camera2 mgx.svg with File:Stop hand nuvola.svg. --jdx Re: 12:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done Looks like vandalism is back after old protection expired. This time indef. semi protection. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_18&oldid=208306145"