Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This file is now called from enwiki's Common.css as interpunct for horizontal lists. Thank you. — Edokter (talk) — 19:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done -mattbuck (Talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to remove (after having a chat with mattbuck in the IRC) the "edit=sysop" protection since [move=sysop] and [upload=sysop] should be enough if just the displayed file content matters (as it is the case here). Then redirs came to my mind - but it seems to be a non-issue. Please join the new discussion at Commons talk:Protection policy#Heavy use / visible files(!) protection. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The file can be unprotected again, as it is no longer in use (in favor of inline interpuncts). — Edokter (talk) — 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done - removed protection again. --Saibo (Δ) 19:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Short deblock please, will upload a cropped version of the person. Conny (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Done a smaller one. MAybe there is some person to do the work I can't do... Thanks, Conny (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Please read Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. The original should not be replaced. It certainly should not be replaced with a version with added visible artifacts from repeated application of destructive JPEG compression. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello LX, thanks for the advise. I did not add visible artefacts. I tryed to make a better version - take a look. Conny (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

Yes, that's better. Still, there is no need to overwrite the original, uncropped version with yours. They're both useful, and it's better to give people a choice. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think advertisement is not necessary... Conny (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

 Done Conny (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Please could you block me indefinitely? I am tired of all this bossy mess and need to take a very long break. Also, is it possible to be blocked globally on all wikimedia? If so, please do it too, because I know too well that once blocked here I will want to contribute on another site. I really need to spend more time studying and less messing around with these wickedly addictive and unrewarding sites. Thanks in advance. - Olybrius (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. A global block needs to be requested here. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody wanna block this jackass? Parsecboy (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably it's too late now as the IP is dynamic. --Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection for the two deletion request pages Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rush hour at Shinjuku 02.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shibuya Station-New main Gate.jpg due to persistent disruptive editing (commenting out other editors' discussion comments) by a dynamic IP user (most probably a sock of Hitachi-Train - who was recently indefinitely banned on Japanese Wikipedia for continued disruptive editing and who now seems to have turned his attention to Commons). --DAJF (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block Lightgus36 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I just observed that this template and its subpages are completely unprotected. Shouldn't such a common permissions template be fully protected indefinitely? Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Russavia. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:43pearYogoSapphire.jpg is queued for main page use at EN in the DYK feature. Cascading protection is supposed to kick in, but if that doesn't happen, please protect it here for 24 to 48 hours. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected for two days. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:M lußsee.jpg -- same request. --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It is already protected.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have 1-day-blocked Mongolyn Nam (WMF) (talk · contribs) for his 5-minutes long vandalism spree. As this account is very unlikely WMF-associated, but obviously only a fan a Demi Lovato, it should probably be perm-blocked as an impostor. --Túrelio (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirming - I can find no record of a user by this name in the WMF files to which I have access. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The account is now globally locked. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 12:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I request review of the 2 weeks block of User:Farisori, imposed by fellow administrator User:Denniss for "abusing multiple accounts"; which I humbly believe it's wrong. When I saw the block on the blocklog I was a bit surprised since Farisori is a good user and a bureaucrat on es.wikipedia. I therefore asked Deniss for evidence of sockpuppetry towards Farisori, but despite Denniss being editting and replying messages on his talkpage the same day and the next he's not answered my request. As such I left a note on User talk:Farisori#Bloqueo informing Farisori about the block and the alleged reasons, which was not done at the time of the block. Farisori has replied to the message and posted an unblock request in Spanish and English. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Asume good faith, I go to unblock Farisori's account until we are sure that he has sockuppet --Ezarateesteban 17:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. CU results turned out negative. I've invited Farisori to participate in this thread if he wants to. Regards, --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 21:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please semi-protect my user page as per user request. Regards --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done  ■ MMXX  ^talk 21:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielassu (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) just came back from a one-month block for uploading copyright violations, only to continue in exactly the same way. It seems he still needs more time to study Commons:Licenciatura. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked but looking back on the page I think a pt speaker might help with communication? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read portuguese. The user said that he's a newbie and that he does not understand the licensing requirements, and asks if somebody can explain him better about that. Regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block JashDM (talk · contributions · Statistics) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block Fernando perfect1.0 (talk · contributions · Statistics) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Already received 2 blocks. Thx.Gunnex (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done One month (blocked for copyvios for the third time). Also deleted two speedies.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please revert this urgently. --  Docu  at 06:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Block this user because the username representing Bell Canada. --Daris Bayliss (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, File:Liatris punctata.jpg and File:Red Cross stove.jpg will appear on the enwikimainpage soon, can someone please protect for 24 hours or so? Cheers, Casliber (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please semi-protect User:Philosopher/Legal disclaimer indefinitely, user request. Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This could be useful for many users, in particular if translated in different languages. May I create {{User legal disclaimer}} with your text and semi-protect that page?--Trixt (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Trixt (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm an admin of the Basque Wikipedia and as we are celebrating tomorrow the 10th anniversary of our Wikipedia edition, we want to change the logo for these days. This logo needs to be changed: file:Wikipedia-logo-v2-eu.png.

This is the image of the new version: File:Basque Wikipedia - 10 years.png

Thanks.--An13sa (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't you just change which file gets used as the logo on your project? It seems strange to overwrite a file with a different one, especially if it's only going to last for a few days. --99of9 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to upload a cropped version of this file. Can you unprotect it so I can do that? --JCRules (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Here it is:

JCRules (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Best to keep them at different filenames. I've crosslinked them both as other versions of one another. Ask a Wikipedia admin if they want to use the cropped version on the main page. --99of9 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that it is becoming clear that we cannot depend on KrinkleBot to protect files in time (see #Please protect some images on behalf of the EN main page above), please give temporary protection to the following files, which are slated to go onto EN's main page in DYK within the next 48 hours:

• File:D.E. Frantz House.JPG
• File:AllSaintsEpiscopalChurch-Chicago.jpg --Orlady (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done: Both are now protected for a week. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block Lightgus36 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- RE rillke questions? 16:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block Matrix22 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). Vandalism-only account. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block Vladislav735 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and two previous blocks (three months last time). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Borderline indef but I've done 6 months - indef next time IMO - txs --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The following files are due to appear on the main page at EN in DYK over the next few days. I realize that cascade protection should apply, but that hasn't been happening on a predictable basis. Please protect:

• File:Cypripedium passerinum.jpg
• File:Branchiostoma lanceolatum.jpg
• File:Ion Theodorescu-Sion - Autoportret.jpg
• File:Stalinizm - proces Kurii Krakowskiej (1953) cropped.jpg

Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done for a week.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand the fun here. Orlady, if you notice images are not protected automatically (that is not a cascade protection) then please mention it here so the bug can be fixed. Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en is supposed to make those protection requests here needless. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection. In reply to Saibo, I've been trying to rely on the automated protection of files, but it hasn't been working out for me. In the last couple of days, I've found that protection has been slow to "kick in." In at least two instances, files were still unprotected 6 or 8 hours after they were queued to go to the main page. In the first of these cases, the image was still not protected some 8 hours after it had been queued, so the bot refused to update DYK and I ended up having to do a manual update, several hours late (and far more work for me than it would have been to download a copy of the file and upload it to EN in order to protect it there). The second instance is specifically related to this most recent protection request. I posted here after several hours of monitoring the protection status of one of those images. When I posted the request, the file had been queued for about 6 hours and the bot had recently updated Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en, but the file was still unprotected.--Orlady (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - we need bug reports to fix errors. :-) If the manual protection is still needed the auto-protection is useless. According to Commons:Bots/Requests/KrinkleBot (2) the bot only protects an image as soon as it is on the main page. Is that too late for your? You mention some other bot? Does it update the main page at enwp only if the images are already protected? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, there does seem to be a disconnect here. There are bots that update some elements of the main page on EN, and it is indeed true that the bot for the EN:Template:Did you know feature (and possibly others) won't update that feature unless the image is already protected. Commons:Bots/Requests/KrinkleBot (2) indicates that KrinkleBot will protect a file within 15 minutes after it's posted on the main page, but that's too late: 15 minutes is far too long to wait, as vandalism could occur in the first 15 seconds.

Files for main page display are selected and queued in advance (for example, the content queued for display in DYK is at EN:Template:Did you know/Queue). I've found that KrinkleBot does protect files that are in that queue, so KrinkleBot knows about it, but (as indicated above) this doesn't happen predictably, so we can't rely on it. I see that the image for "On this day" for 7 December is already transcluded at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en, and therefore is protected. While most main page features update just once each day, the DYK content is updated several times each day (currently the update is scheduled to run every 8 hours). --Orlady (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

KrinkleBot currently looks recursively at all images uses on w:Main Page and w:Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. And checks protection every 15 minutes (and if there was a change, it edits Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en). –Krinkle^talk 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So the DYK-Bot just needs to update /Tomorrow one day before and everything would be securely protected. --Saibo (Δ) 22:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please protect User talk:Der Buckesfelder at protections level move and edit = sysop. --Buckesfelder (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? The normal function of a talk page is as a means of communication with you, for everybody, so there will have to be very good reasons for a protection like that. Was there vandalism? --Rosenzweig τ 11:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To left a message for me, you can use [1]. --Buckesfelder (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not the way it work - I cannot recall any time in some years where a user page was protected in such a way. If you have contributed to Commons then I would not expect anyone to have to go to another project to contact you I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) There is no sense to change the portal to leave a message concerning Commons in Wikipedia. I would suggest to take it easy and not to feel huffy about this what is conjectured the reason for your notice here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only a few times that I'm work at commons. So I answer contributions on my talk page rarely. If you want an answer very fast you should call me at my german Wikipedia talk page and not at my commons talk page. --Buckesfelder (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you only worked a few times at Commons there will not be much requests on your talk page. You can point to your talk page at de.wiki. So no need for blocking the page. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you should probably enable e-mail notifications in your preferences. Commons-related notifications left by bots and scripts used for tagging images won't work if your user talk page is blocked, and Commons' multi-lingual message templates don't work on other websites. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Buckesfelder = User:Der Buckesfelder ? Where is the proof? -- RE rillke questions? 14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Buckesfelder is my socket puppet for my mobile devices. --Buckesfelder (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please change the protection to [edit=filemover:move=sysop], because filemovers should be call the CommonsDelinker. --Buckesfelder (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's impossible. As far as I know. Sadly. And I don't know whether there is consensus to grant filemovers such a great power. (Of course Abuse-Filter could be used to protect the page.) -- RE rillke questions? 09:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This user uploaded 3 copyright violations (not deleted yet), please block this user. --Daris Bayliss (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The user was first notified today, so I won't block just yet. I'll deal with the copyvios now. --99of9 (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, actually, one of them has an OTRS-pending tag on it, so it will get deleted later if that's not true. --99of9 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block Lord Ozzy (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload Flickrwashed copyvios from his Juan Pablo79 account on Flickr, which is listed on Commons:Questionable Flickr images. He's been warned numerous times and blocked twice before (last time for a month). These files also need to be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- RE rillke questions? 12:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Attack account which I have just indef blocked on en.wiki. Delete his upload (it was used for a personal attack, which I have revedeleted on en.wiki [2] - if you're an admin, you can verify that, otherwise, trust my word). Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done (not by me) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

LEODVAM (talk · contribs) is continuing to upload copyvios after receing a warning today. January (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done - some time required to study licensing I think - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel sugden (talk · contribs), blocked twice already for uploading obvious copyright violations, has uploaded another one shortly after his last block expired. January (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no warning on copyvio note about block, I just warned them for now.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The user has continued to upload copyvios after the warning. January (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one month, thank you.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 21:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please protect the a/m page. People seem to be using it for their experiments. To enable the upload to edit it, one could also just move it to User:Raboe001/licence.js --  Docu  at 23:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be ok with the user. --  Docu  at 00:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please have a look at this user. She/he has uploaded numerous copyvio despite being warned. Please block him/her--Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Bdk -- RE rillke questions? 07:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that page Techeasy.in is good to protex´ct against new creation.--Motopark (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not our usual practice at this stage. Herby and I have each deleted it once. You have warned him twice about scope and I have warned him with {{Dont recreate}}. If he does it a third time, I'll block him for a day to get his attention. Besides, the protect against new creation doesn't work well.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The image File:Adammalik2.jpg is set to appear on a DYK at hi-wp, and will probably be there for about a week. Please protect it.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I protected 1 week for new and unregistered users. That should eliminate most vandals. --MGA73 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This user has uploaded 30+ copyright violations. Please block him/her. --Daris Bayliss (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, it's in excess of 100 copyright violations, claiming copyright on national sides of Euro coins. There's a related discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Euro_coin_copyvios. Editor hasn't edited in a month, but did continue copyright violations after multiple notices by User:Magog the Ogre to his talk page. All of the post notification uploads have been deleted (about 30 of them). See Recent changes on those file pages. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I slightly tend to wait if the user continues uploading copyvios as it is likely that he is inactive as a result of noticing the warnings on his talk page. →Nagy 15:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nagy. Equally I would have preferred to have seen the "end copyvios" template used as it has translations and it is not obvious that the user is en I think? Folk seem to forget this is a multilingual project --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Continues uploading obvious and proven to be copyrighted images and claims ownership. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not uploaded anything (yet) since the final warning I think? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block Fopnor (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Two weeks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Mantumyself (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) seems to think that 'tis the season to upload copyvio porn to Commons in spite of multiple warnings. Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(show/hide) 13:19, 25 December 2011 Martin H. (talk | contribs | block) blocked Mantumyself (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Copyright violations: Uploading unfree files grabbed from the internet, false claims of own work. Read the Commons:First steps.) (unblock | change block)

— [3]

--Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block AhmedEssam11 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload blatant copyright violations (mostly AP photos with false authorship claims) in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. Their uploads also need to be deleted. File:Mohamed Hussein Tantawi.png has been tagged as a "speedy" deletion for more than three days now. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for two weeks. Deleted all but three of the uploads -- the three are probably copyvios, but I couldn't find them on Tineye or Google.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Please help me to return back the images deleted by Rosenzweig:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ELF_observatory_Martova.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Utr2.JPG

These are photographs of the institute observatories. This images are also placed on the web page (http://ri.kharkov.ua/) which is supported by me. One of them is taken by me, another by one of my colleges.

My personal web page is http://geospace.ri.kharkov.ua/geospace/en/staff.html or http://geospace.ri.kharkov.ua/geospace/staff/kascheev_a.html

Which tags should be put in order these images are not deleted?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.Kascheev (talk • contribs) 2 August 2011 08.26 (UTC)

This was taken to COM:UDEL and sorted out there. Rd232 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Gostaria que fosse liberada a Bandeira da cidade de Glória do Goitá - Pernambuco - Brasil para inclusão da mesma, que será retirada da Homepage da Prefeitura de Gloria do Goita.

Call-Unlocking the Flag of Glória do Goitá-PE City.

Saudações!

Rômulo Borba

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Romulobv (talk • contribs) 15 September 14:20 (UTC)

Adding {{Unsigned}} as this will otherwise stay here forever. This relates to now-deleted file File:Bandeira Glória do Goitá - PE.jpg. No permission, and none likely. Looking at the image from its source, it {{PD-textlogo}} is perhaps possible, but we have no details of the threshold of originality in Brazil. Or if the image is unchanged for long enough, it might be out of copyright. Rd232 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please unblock Bali ultimate (talk · contribs), a real person with a name, a journalist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Afaik we don't generally do unblocks where the only stated reason is the user's profession, but Russavia shortened the block to two weeks. Jafeluv (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

NB: It appears that Bali ultimates block is being discussed on his own talk page, when the discussion should be here. The comment I placed on his page was deleted by Bali ultimate, which of course he is entitled to do. But if criticisms are deleted, and support is not, the discussion on his page is worthless. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've perm-blocked this 4-edits user after a clear blackmail attack on Fæ‎. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and another account I see was dealt with too (a puppet one...) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

please protect page Feedback, see history, thanks--Motopark (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sprot which should do ok - only likely to be newbies I hope. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block Joffre eupe (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and two previous blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

3 months - indef next - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please restore the version prior to SJu's edit of December 15 for the following:

• Category:Artists by name
• Category:People by name
• Category:People by name by country
• Category:People by name by year
• Category:Saints by name

and protected the category description pages. This unless another conclusion is to be drawn from Category_talk:People_by_name#This_is_flat_list. Thanks. --  Docu  at 11:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please block Lightgus36 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and two previous blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 Indefinitely blocked by MarcoAurelio. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Annamir97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I propose that this user be permanently blocked due to repeated uploads of copyrighted images:

• File:Асмус Кристина.jpg
• File:Асмус Кристина Игоревна.jpg
• File:Асмус.jpg
• File:Кристина Игоревна Асмус.jpeg

I have warned the user after his/her first two uploads on [4], yet my warning was ignored. In fact, he/she now uploads images stating that it is "own work", which is likely misinformation. -- X7q (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Warned, not blocked I see four deleted uploads, all copyvios. I see no warning at all here on Commons. Even a one day block is not justified without a warning here. I left such a warning on his talk page. We will hope for a change in behavior.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please block this user indefinitely due to the following reasons:

• Sockpuppetry of MulroyHypercam30 who spammed Flag shopping website on File:Olympic flag.svg, reverted by the steward. ([5])
• Uploading three copyvios including:
  • File:ManU.png (logo of Manchester United)
  • File:Innsbruck2012.jpg (logo of upcomming YOG Innsbruck 2012)
  • File:FreshBeat.png (logo of Nick Jr. TV Show, The Fresh Beat Band).

Not a particularly good reason for a block however there does appear to be puppetry so blocked more than one. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone remove the single attack edit and block User:RomaineIsACoward, for obvious reasons? --Fæ (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --99of9 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I globally locked this account too. Thanks. Trijnstel (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

I have gotten an account block warning for multiple upload copyright violations. I was asked to message Polarlys if I had questions but I can't locate that area. I have full permission from Zenescope and was even asked by the Company if I was interested in creating a Wiki page. If you need permission directly for me to put these publicly available images on their Wiki page then I will give you contact to the gentleman in charge and he will sort it out. Please respond asap. And thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

- 719pcmedic

Polarlys is not an area, but a user and administrator. You can contact him here. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone from Zenescope should send permissions according to COM:OTRS. Please not that you can’t upload files for use on Wikipedia only, they have to be freely licensed so that they can be used everywhere, by everyone and even in a commercial way. --Polarlys (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Polarlys (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please unprotect the file description page. Protecting against reuploads should be sufficient for en_wiki's purposes. --  Docu  at 13:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Mmxx. Trijnstel (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

Apparently it remains protected (more efficiently) through transclusion at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en and User:Bdk/de. As cascading protection can't be limited to re-uploads, I suppose it will remain protected.

Thus I can't do my edit request (at File talk:Costa Concordia 2.JPG) myself then. If any administrator would do so, I'd be glad. --  Docu  at 14:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I hope I did it correct. Trijnstel (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked for a week for uploading copyright violations after being warned multiple times. Apparently, it wasn't enough; I just tagged all his recent uploads as copyright violations, but given that he just removes warnings from his talk page, I doubt it will change anything. A longer (or even indefinite, given that he didn't make a single useful contribution to Commons) block seems in order. Prof. Professorson (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. 1 month now - indef next - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Prof. Professorson (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please fully protect this image for at least two days. It will be used directly in a SOPA-banner on German Wikipedia, viewed by millions of users. Thanks --Tobias (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the image and page be fully protected until the Blackout is over since it is used on the central notices (see the code of e.g. [6]). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I've now noticed a Category:SOPA initiative which you might want to look at. Not sure which of those will be used and which were prototypes, but perhaps it's better to be safe than sorry given the number of people who will see these images at some point. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've protected this one too, as it is used for ru-wp SOPA banner, also I left a message for Philippe to let us know if more protections are needed.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 23:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Copyright by Wikimedia is currently protected and it seems to use Template:Copyright by Wikimedia/layout somehow (the latter appears in the "Templates used on this page:" list in the edit window), so perhaps this template should be, too. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You surely meant "template should be protected", right? Done, but semi for now. --Túrelio (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Can you please revert the Christmas logo of ka.wikipedia to the usual one? File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ka.png. Thank you.--George, 11:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!.--George, 18:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

User continues with uploading of copyrighted images. It was warned about it once before. --LMLM (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Herbythyme. Thanks--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Banned long-time sockpuppeter User:Wikinger is back with his usual shenanigans, most recently at File:Greek Alphabet Unicode.png. Please delete file (uploaded by ban-evading sock) and block IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please block again DcoetzeeBot (talk · contribs) - was unblocked by owner. Bot flag is abused to hide controversial edits. --Saibo (Δ) 23:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC) User_talk:Dcoetzee#revert_your_bot.27s_vandalism --Saibo (Δ) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted there, bot is not currently running, so there is no reason to block it. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot is guessing, when a file is published in past - and thus can potentially create false facts. He knows that, but he didn't review or revert it, but started another job, that changes without consens and it is altering log-files. --Quedel (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I already stopped making PD-1923 changes hours ago, as soon as I was notified of this issue. I will revert all changes adding PD-1923 to existing tags. These were in error and I apologise. I will also revert changes which affected upload logs, as this was another careless error. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: bot is currently running only to revert prior erroneous edits. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I still request a block - or a bot flag removal as it was abused. --Saibo (Δ) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you stopped it. But instead of correcting these false edits, you're starting your bot again with a new task. And what happens? The bot makes false edits, again (altering the log). So I assume what will happen - you're stopping the actual misleading edits and will start your bot again without cleaning the incorrect edits. Only useful task now can only be to revert itself. But what maybe happen then if someone reverts now? I don't try to look ... --Quedel (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm being careful about that case and handling any pages that have been edited since manually. I made only two incorrect edits in the new task, due to an unforeseen error, and they have already been reverted. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you are running your bot again - I told you not to. The bot should be blocked. Btw: interesting that your bot flag did only take 1 day: start: 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC) - "Looks good to me so far, no problems with a botflag. Huib talk 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)" --Saibo (Δ) 23:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Correction: Commons:Bots/Requests/DcoetzeeBot was just not clearly formatted - the request had a duration of 2009-07-31T18:47:33‎ until 2009-08-10T14:41:01‎. So it is not 1 day as it seemed. Sorry for being confused by the request page - have made it more obvious now. --Saibo (Δ) 02:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You need less than 4 seconds to control the changes, saving and checking if it is correct reverted? This for hundred of files? We have a german phrase for this „Denn sie wissen nicht, was sie tun“ (For they know not what they do.) What's the situation? We have a bot, starting incorrect edits, now it is reverting and we have over 400 reverts at this moment - open end. So there is a mass of unuseful edits at this night because the user is over(re)acting and out of memory to make correct bot-tasks. This is the first. At second: if someone other blocks my bot, i cannot unblock it. Such overruling (is that a known word in english?) should be a no-go. --Quedel (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot is running only for self-reverts until further notice. Manual intervention is not needed to verify a correct revert - I only revert in cases where the bot was the last edit and handle other cases manually. I'll reblock the bot again when it's done reverting. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, again, you should have discussed your revert plan before and then get it unblocked (or do so by yourself after clear agreement). Instead you unblocked your bot less than six minutes after I had blocked it. --Saibo (Δ) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment First, lets agree that a bot should not be used for edits that are disputed. If the changes are disputed or expected to be disputed then they should be discussed first.

Second, if a bot makes a mess then the operator should clean up and if it can be done safely with the bot then I see no reason why a bot should not be used for that as long as the bot operator knows what he or she is doing. --MGA73 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I should have anticipated a dispute over the review process and not made these edits without prior discussion. I apologise. Please note though that both bot jobs were terminated immediately as soon as they were disputed, and both jobs have been reverted in their entirety. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot's flag can then (maybe not now) be discussed here: Commons:Bots/Requests/User:DcoetzeeBot (de-flag). --Saibo (Δ) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note, revert job is done and bot is now reblocked. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - continue here: Commons:Bots/Requests/User:DcoetzeeBot (de-flag). --Saibo (Δ) 02:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Superiorfaither (talk · contribs), also editing as Special:Contributions/115.252.127.148, has been on a very fast-paced (bot- or script-assisted?) copyvio upload spree, using a Flickr-washing account at [7]. He was previously warned on en-wiki and has now shifted the same images here, and several more. Statements like this [8] and [9] show unwillingness to listen to explanations of copyright policy, and seemingly retributive edits to other people's images like [10] and [11] display an aggressive, unconstructive stance, very likely fuelled by a religious battleground agenda. Suggest a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Third World contributors (this one seems obviously from India) have trouble grasping the concept of copyright, and language barriers don't help with explaining it. The statement at File_talk:Engraved_Foot_Prints_of_Guru_Ravidas_Ji.jpg is textbook. Really, someone should try and explain the issues to him - I don't see bad faith (eg the first statement you link suggests belief that copyright expires with the death of the subject). Rd232 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This user keeps re-uploading the same book cover over and over again (at least 4 times: File:İnsan ovu.jpg, File:Çingiz Abdullayev - İnsan ovu.jpg, File:İnsan ovu (kitab).jpg and File:Üz qabığı.jpg). A short block and (if possible) an explanation from someone who speaks Azerbaijani might be in order. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Azerbaijani, but I added a warning. Yann (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This user has been using their Wikimedia Commons account to upload only copyrighted images, as you can see at their talk page, and they have been re-uploading the same images that were deleted before. They have been warned many times. Allan Javier Aguilar Castillo (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done for a week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This user keeps uploading copyright violations after warnings. They received a final warning on January 17, I think it's time for a block. Prof. Professorson (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done for a week. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

After the Communities of Thai Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikiquote and Wikibooks resolved to adopt the new versions of their logos respectively, I am charged with the duty to upload the newly adopted logos. But:

1. I cannot upload a new version of the file File:Wikiquote-logo-th.png, for it is protected; and
2. I cannot upload the files under the names "File:Wikiquote-logo-v2-th.png" and "File:Wikibooks-logo-th.png", for the names are protected.

So, what should I do? Thank you so much.

--Aristitleism (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are several possibilities. The easiest is for me to ask -- what did the people voting on the question look at while voting? Do the required images already exist someplace within the global project? If so, then please give us the file names (from and to) and an Admin will move them as required.

If they don't exist anywhere but your computer, then the easiest way to do it is to upload the files under different names -- perhaps File:Wikiquote-logo-th 2012.png and request that an Admin move them as above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Thank you once again. And as the issue deals with protection, so I make a request here.
2. Request:
   1. Please move "File:OkTH-Wikibooks 001.png" to "File:Wikibooks-logo-th.png"; and
   2. "File:OkTH-Wikiquote 001.png" to "File:Wikiquote-logo-th.png".

--Aristitleism (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the Wikiquote logo adoption finalized? – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For Wikisource and Wiktionary logo change, please upload a new file at local wiki, "File:Wiki.png" respectively. For Wikibooks, please file a bug on bugzilla to change logo configuration. If the logo is hosted on local wiki, local admin's assistance will be needed to apply full protection. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to

1. [12] for Wiktionary
2. [13] for Wikiquote
3. [14] for Wikisource
4. [15] for Wikibooks

Re: Kwj2772

1. The logos exist on Commons for voting before.
2. I will have those files uploaded to local sites as you suggested.

Could you please move the two files mentioned above? Thank you --taweethaも (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Wikibooks & Wikiquote image moved as above. Wikiquote logo will have immediate effect of logo change. Please check if the logo render correctly. – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For Wiktionary and Wikisource logo, you can upload just wikt:th:File:Wiki.png & s:th:File:Wiki.png. Please don't forget to protect them. – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked once a few weeks ago for uploading copyright violations, and is now uploading some more. Please issue a longer block. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done a few seconds ago by Martin H., thanks. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This user has nominated this image for the third time, with the same rationale, although it has already been kept twice. If they don't want to accept decisions based om Commons' policies, maybe it's time for a block. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I put a strong warning on the talk page. The next such action will bring a block.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This image is still nominated for deletion, and the discussion hasn't been closed yet. Someone has been removing the "delete" tag. Requesting temporary semi-protection. --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Closed, deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

user User:Servicemaster clean are same than web, does it need some--Motopark (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done username block seems appropriate. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked this user, who had uploaded a screenshot from TV, then repeatedly removed the problem tag from the image and the note from his talkpage and also twice left an insult[16],[17] on my talkpage (likely in revenge for the copyvio-deletion of his upload). Though it's unlikely to expect anything productive from him, I haven't indef'd, but blocked for 1 month. If a colleague thinks even that to be too long, feel free to shorten it. --Túrelio (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

actually you only blocked the account for a week, I agree with the block even if it was for a month Gnangarra 04:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Uploading out-of-scope images. Francisco (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Warned. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please block Farazm79 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Copyvios deleted and this user got blocked. Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please deal with Bobi1997 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) and their copyvio uploads? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User blocked. Most files deleted, except 5 which might be too simple, I am not sure. Yann (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see here. All uploads are clearly copyright violations with nonsense descriptions Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 15:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is ignorning warning to stop... I'm going to stop tagging the images they are uploading as they are obvious copyright violations. Personally I think you should nuke them all - thanks. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 15:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User warned. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This user keeps uploading copyvios after his block expired, please block again. Techman224^Talk 23:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has been blocked, but I think an indef block is warented. Techman224^Talk 00:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block Domenico Skarsgard (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). They uploaded File:Madonna 69th Annual Golden Globe Awards.jpg, giving https://www.flickr.com/photos/madonnand/6808130629 as the source. The Flickr file was uploaded today using an account created today, so it's clearly operated by Domenico Skarsgard for license laundering. The EXIF was also manipulated. The Copyright holder field was changed to "Free." while several other fields still indicate that it's a Getty Images photo. This user clearly has no intention whatsoever of contributing honestly to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that they had a somewhat useful edit to this file, I've only warned them for now.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 22:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RinnenganGrunge86 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is another supposedly brand new Commons user attempting Flickrwashing with their first upload, File:Jorge Pitbull Claros.jpg, uploaded first to https://www.flickr.com/photos/75758571@N05/6808124917 today using a Flickr account created today. I'm fairly sure I tagged the same photo uploaded by another user just a few ago. This user also clearly has no intention whatsoever of contributing honestly to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Only warned, for now.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 22:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block CNemo21 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations and recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. They've also turned to attempting Flickrwashing using their newly created account https://www.flickr.com/people/75644752@N04/. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 2 weeks.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 22:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing from an IP, blocked en.WP editor Zhand38 is threatening suicide on my talk page here (he did this once before on en many months back). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I cannot judge the "threat" correctly (English is not my native language)... Maybe you should call the police. Are you requesting something special with this post here? --Saibo (Δ) 02:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the WP policy on this kind of thing, here. I'm an admin on the english WP but not here on commons. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The situation is imported form enwp, you know the case and so you know best what to do. So do/request what is necessary. --Saibo (Δ) 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This user threatened suicide after Gwen Gale declined his unblock request, in which the user directly complained about her. Of course the user felt bullied, and he was bullied by an involved admin Gwen Gale. So the best thing to do is to stop bullying and acting when involved, Gwen Gale.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mbz1, I am aware of the issues relating to yourself and Gwen Gale, so I do suggest that you stay away from Gwen Gale, and Gwen Gale stay away from you. Accusing an editor of bullying without evidence is not on; and neither is importation of disputes from other projects. Keep disputes where they belong, otherwise action can be to prevent disruption of Commons. russavia (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked 208.102.209.78 (talk · contribs) for one day and have left a message on their talk page which they would be well advised to take heed of. russavia (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block Sharmitavox (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to blank problem tags from the copyright violations and improperly sourced content that they insist on uploading. They're also using the following IP addresses for this purpose:

• 80.191.253.164 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
• 80.191.253.171 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
• 80.191.253.178 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)
• 80.191.253.189 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User and most recent IP blocked - the others haven't edited in the past few hours --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that didn't help. :( See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mazandiran. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting full protection for a week, image is soon to be put on the Main page on enwiki as part of the DYK. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 16:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, this is what User:KrinkleBot does. See Commons:Auto-protected files -- RE rillke questions? 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This image needs attention from administrators. It should ideally be protected until the dispute is resolved and User:Chipmunkdavis ought to be reminded that they should not revert so often. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ALEX47 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)

Copyvio, copyvio, copyvio... Kobac (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Polarlys. Thanks--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block Olivedrah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. --viniciusmc (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User is warned, next time he'll get a block. PierreSelim (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block KIZENKOV (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload a large number of copyright violations in spite of countless warnings and a previous one-week block. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 month. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 06:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tope110383 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)

Copyvios from 2 December 2010. Kobac (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 days, but I think that we need to remove all files from him (low size and requests of permissions). Kobac (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I deleted some, where I found a copy on the web. Please create a deletion request for the rest. Yann (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mati 0112 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)

Only copyvios. Kobac (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Was already blocked in December 2011, therefore blocked for 1 month. Yann (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please delete the middle revision (uploaded by copyright violator Jordicema (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log)) of File:Charice 2.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 03:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please un-protect the coat of arms of Kenya. I do not believe this file is under threat of edit warring any more, and I have a couple minor fixes that should also reduce the file size. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 20:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection: Please protect my user page, I don't want any I.P user vandalizing my user page. — NZscout  06:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit protection is usually not applied preemptively to low-risk pages. Currently, only about 130 pages in the User: namespace are protected on Commons, which has over 1.8 million users. So is there any reason to assume that your particular user page is likely to be the target of vandalism by anonymous users? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 No need to do so. User page vandalism by IPs is impossible. -- RE rillke questions? 12:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Request block of this user for uploading copyrighted works after being warned and blocked for doing the same. It also appears that the user is trying to Flickrwash images they upload. Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 month. Yann (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In his picture are link his home page, do we clean the link. Uploaders user name are same than homepage.--Motopark (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominated all this images for deletion. Seems to abuse Commons as a personal image hoster. -- RE rillke questions? 12:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I could certainly call those "out of scope". One user image - sure - that many...? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block Yamaaan (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) and their sockpuppet Charming Sabeel (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for repeated attempted license laundering, abusing multiple accounts, and for blatantly lying about it or attempting to cover it up when confronted with the evidence. Yamaaan has had a block for Flickrwashing over at English Wikipedia, from which they obviously chose to learn nothing. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You can add Llvllr.umar.riaz1995 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) to the list. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Two blocked as puppets - the last one - from a CU perspective - is not directly related though I understand why you would think so. I'll leave any block on that to others. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Turns out this case goes back a bit further. See Category:Sockpuppets of Sabeeel43. Aside from Llvllr.umar.riaz1995 (who is a pretty obvious puppet considering the timing of the account creation, the first action taken, sharing the same idiosyncratic use of capitalisation and punctuation), Sabeel (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) also needs to be blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block Psantos21 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for repeatedly recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of numerous warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -  Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mazandiran, Sharmitavox (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Mazandiran (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), but they're only blocked for one month. Sockpuppet accounts are normally blocked indefinitely. Amardian (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is also an obvious sockpuppet, but they're only blocked for a week, and there are still uploads that need to be deleted. (All their uploads are copyright violations.) Please extend the blocks to indefinite and delete the uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted suspicious images, where copies can be found on the web, and non photographs which are certainly not own works. I extended Amardian's block. Rest a few images with no copies found and EXIF data which could be legitimate. Yann (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Extended Sharmitavox's block to indefinite as well. Jafeluv (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this user, who has just reuploaded a bunch of out of scope PDFs, after a previous deletion request and a warning on their talk page. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Nuked the new uploads, as they appear to be mostly new versions of previously deleted material and gave the user a more explicit warning against out of scope PDFs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio-spamming. Kobac (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The side-effect of UploadWizard. I will delete the obvious ones but the user never received a "end copyvios"-notice and I think all uploads of the user are from today so even this message would be inappropriate because the user might not have read the current messages, yet. -- RE rillke questions? 14:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios after warning. Kobac (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave the user a clear multilingual warning -- I don't think your "Please stop" is enough, particularly since he or she may not read English.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio after warning (in Russian, but he can speak Russian). Kobac (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I used the formal warning {{End of copyvios}}. Now he is warned clearly (in a language he can read).--PierreSelim (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Massive copyvio uploading from korespondentdrogowy.pl after warnings. Kobac (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the uploader is martin.. in the forum. It would be better to have a DR instead of the spread of information that we have now. -- RE rillke questions? 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked user continues... Kobac (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Spamming for vandalism in en.wiki. Kobac (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked. Jafeluv (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio after many warnings. Kobac (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios after warning. Kobac (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Contribs deleted, and user warned. You left a 'final warning' after just the first upload(?!), and the last upload was minutes after your warning, so probably not enough to get the point across. A block should follow if they continue. Jafeluv (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio after warning. Kobac (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. Jafeluv (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Massive spam. Kobac (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sent to DR, and warned the user. Jafeluv (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio after warning. Kobac (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked. Thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Massive uploadings of copyvio after warnings and starting deletion request. Kobac (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently holding the position of Mayor's Cabinet Secretary an would like to update the information on our city's profile on Wikipedia, by uploading our real coat of arms. Please unprotect the page http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Miguel_dos_Campos .

The image link needs to be changed in the article rather than uploading over the current image. I you need help adding the image to the article send a copy of the image to photosubmissionwikimedia.org. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 03:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I request the upload protection for those icons heavily used on Russian Wikipedia (see w:ru:File:Sight symbol black.svg and w:ru:File:Sight symbol grey.svg). -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done MorganKevinJ^(talk) 17:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block Itsfrancoyall (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please protect {{PD-Liberia}}: it's a permissions template but it has no protection whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done MorganKevinJ^(talk) 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does a template that's used on six files and which has never been vandalized need indefinite full protection? Excessive protection prevents established users from carrying out translation work and other improvements. Please stick to Commons:Protection policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Standard for file licensing templates to have at least semi-protection. This not only prevents vandalism but also unwanted side effects - remember the GFDL disclaimer issue at several wikis including en. --Denniss (talk)

I have no objections to semi-protection, but again, I don't see how full protection for a template that's used on six files and which has never been vandalized is in line with Commons:Protection policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio after last warning. Kobac (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. --O (谈 • висчвын) 06:27, 21 February 2012 (GMT)

RyzhkovA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uploaded many copyvio files (like File:0 595cb d4da3ab5 XL.jpg, for example)
then Лг (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) posted them to English wikipedia.
Now look to Лг's contribs here: copyvio and nothing else. Please block them all. Kobac (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - A.Savin 10:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio after last warning. Kobac (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for three days.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios after last warning. Please block and delete. Kobac (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for three days.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio after las warning. Please block and delete. Kobac (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I deleted the file, but did not block him. There was only the one upload after the warning and it was four days ago.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This user keeps uploading the Disney Channel logo (File:Disney channel.jpg, File:Disney ch.jpeg, File:Disney channel HD uk logo.jpg and File:Disney channel hd.png). If someone could issue a final warning and keep an eye on them... Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Warned russavia (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like he didn't get the message. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah - good point - thanks &  Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios after last warning. Please block and delete. Kobac (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Ezarateesteban 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios after last warning. Please block and delete. Kobac (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Ezarateesteban 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Shakthiswaroop7 uploads copyvio covers after warnings.--Motopark (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You have notified him several times he uploaded copyvio, now I gave him a warning clearly saying he'll be block next time. I hope we won't have to do that. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued after warning, looks like the message wasn't recieved. Eventually blocked for 3 days (may be he will read the message this time). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please lower the protection level of this template to Semi-protection so I can fix the spelling. Thank you. Cœur (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - let us know when you have finished - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On this specific one, it's done. But just check my recent changes: this template might be the only protected template and shouldn't return to full protection. See above on this page the case of {{PD-Liberia}}: we don't want full protection for this kind of templates. Otherwise a lot of people will need to apply for Admin status just to edit those translations. Cœur (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Jasminairways (talk · contribs) - Spam only account and creates pages out of project scope after warnings. However this account should be blocked forever because when I take a look from the users contributions, it exists solely for spamming here. Can an admin please block that spammer and that would be appreciated. Kindly regards. --Katarighe (Talk) 14:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please check before posting - I blocked it yesterday. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I check the User talk page and I believe that the username meets a company/orgnaization to promote "Jasmine Airways" See here. I did some searching with google and it was a match. --Katarighe (Talk) 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done - By User:Jameslwoodward --Katarighe (Talk) 16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Massive Copyvio-spamming via flickrwashing. Please block and delete. Kobac (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the user to read Commons:Licensing and Commons:First steps to get it useful. --Katarighe (Talk) 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block Eric hsu1222 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations and recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple copyvio warnings, both here and on English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please protect the above file. User:WPK has continued trying to force his unsourced changes to the file against the revision of two separate users. His edit war needs to stop. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked WPK for 1 week for edit warring MorganKevinJ^(talk) 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the user has continued to edit war they have been blocked indefinitely and the file description page page has been semi-protected for one month to discourage sockpuppetry. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 16:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please unprotect the page. The dispute over the old and new flags of Libya is long over. --Meno25 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Rehman 03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block Giammiz (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Lymantria (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block VENKATESHafx (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Jiivarocks (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) needs some assistance to stop uploading copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - short block for now to give them time to read. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please protect the Persian Wikisource logo from editing by users. For more information please see bugzilla:34476. Thanks. Americophile 19:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this category for a reasonable duration of time due to persistent vandalism. I don't know what is wrong with it and why the IP address insists on removing the descriptions. Thanks Americophile 21:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another incompetent spambot. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Cross wiki spambot again - highly active currently. IPs are usually blockable - I'm dealing with them here and elsewhere on a daily basis currently. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I requested blocking of Sabeeel43's sockpuppet Sabeel (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) almost a month ago (see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 9#Yamaaan and sockpuppet Charming Sabeel). Could someone please do that? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if someone with more experience in this area reviews the block of (127.0.0.1) (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log).

• After blocking, Saibo pointed me to SUL that shows this user has a years old account on de.wikipedia and is not blocked there.
• It can be really confusing if one thinks an IP is uploading images and NavPopups treat this user like an IP.

Thanks in advance -- RE rillke questions? 19:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please let me keep my login. I've been using it for more than 6 years on de-WP without any complaints. -- Daniel(127.0.0.1) 19:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see a problem with this user name. The IP address itself and the parentheses should make it clear enough that this is the name of an account. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 :) --AFBorchert (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. Funnily there is w:Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1 --  Docu  at 21:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with the name (and the new signature) but newcomers could have one. It's just better to decide now because the user is new to this project than later when a lot of files with author fields or signatures are around. -- RE rillke questions? 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand Rillke's concerns and I think that not a small number of (non-techy or longterm) users whould think that this is an "IP" user since there are just the parentheses added (yes, the techy ones also know that 127.0.0.1 would be quite a strange IP editing here). I think that new users shouldn't be allowed such names - but as this user is registered (and not "not active") for a very long time at a sister project with this name I would not support a block here at Commons (that does not mean that I oppose - especially if a good reason is given). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I think Saibo said almost everything I wanted to say. Riilke concern can be understood. I think the fact this account has been used for years without problems on de-WP really convinced me it should be OK here too. May be, a suggestion could be to have a more descriptive user page (use babel box) so the account cannot be mistaken with an IP. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input and welcome to Commons, Daniel. If you should encounter later problems due to your username, please refer here (   [[Special:Permalink/68018826]]   ). Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 20:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Angelnavarro1 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) and sockpuppet account Angelnavarro5 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done indef for User:Angelnavarro5 as a sockpuppets, 2 weeks for Angelnavarro1 for uploading copyvio--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Psantos21 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations and repeatedly recreating previously deleted copyright violations (not once, not twice, but three times in the case of File:Angelo-rebelo.jpeg) in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done for 1 month--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Antile Miguel (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Techman224^Talk 21:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Vinícius Correia (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 16:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please protect this name; I've redirected it to File:Name.jpg because it's too generic. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

71.57.145.99 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user keeps creating pages not covered by our project scope, despite multiple warnings. Please consider blocking this IP. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for 3 months. Rehman 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Reincarnation of blocked ALEX47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

Massive copyvio uploading from fotobus.msk.ru.

For example: File:Лиаз 5256.jpg - http://fotobus.msk.ru/photo/534462/, File:Лиаз 5292.jpg - http://fotobus.msk.ru/photo/605362/. Kobac (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Confirmed, blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• User(s) blocked -- OK, I think we're done with this guy (or girl). ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This template contains no vandalism. UNPROTECT IT IMMEDIATELY, I HAVE A GOOD FAITH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsMeBrandonSky (talk • contribs) 00:58, 14 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Is that why en:User:BrandonSkyPimenta is blocked indefinitely? Please don't carry over the nonsense from there to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the very first edit made by a new user. It cannot be a legitimate request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange start for a newcomer [18] on the projects. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Chucky85 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done by User:Denniss--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Voravitjessica (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done for 1 month--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please lower the protection level of this template to Semi-protection so I can fix the spelling and eventually design it for subpages. Thank you. Cœur (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done let us know when you have finished. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Finished. But no need to put it back to full-protection or you will have quite some work to handle. Cœur (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Shall we put any kind of protection (semi/full) to the i18l subpages created ? --PierreSelim (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No you shall not. If you want to protect those, then you better contact a dev to semi-protect the whole [[Template:]] namespace directly. Cœur (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Merci pour ton boulot sur ces modèles (thanks for your work on thoses models). --PierreSelim (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I added an {{Edit request}} to this template subpage, but in fact it is really an unprotection request. Can someone change the page (and any other subpages of {{Assessments}} to unprotected or semi-protected so we can clean up the way it adds categories to non file-space pages. Thanks. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Changed /temp to semi-protected, which should be fine. The language subpages are to be unprotected. Do you need the parent unprotected as well?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :-). I think the parent is already semi-protected, so fine for now. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Vietnamnomadtrails same name than web-address.--Motopark (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 05:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Heman25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Also delete all his images, since he used a fake Flickr account to validade them. Thanks, --viniciusmc (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done 1 month blocked. Lymantria (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Robertsklavins (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings at Latvian Wiki. --Edgars2007 (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - uploads gone and uploader has two weeks to think about it. --Denniss (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Mc.punk IMHO this user page should be deleted. Thanks for checking! --Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?) 15:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, users can provide information about them on their user page if they want to. Just an exemple w:User:Philippe (WMF) of what we allow. If there are personal information that really must go, it can be masked/oversight but we don't delete user pages. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point was, he probably was/is a minor when he put that stuff on. I know it is ok to put privat info on the user page. --Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the page itself, he is from Cuba and was 16 when he created it. 16 is the age of majority in Cuba according to their consitution, so he was not a minor under Cuban law. Under US jurisdiction (where Wikimedia's servers are located), the relevant law is COPPA, where 13 is the relevant threshold. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up! --Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?) 17:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please protect the a/m category description page until a new layout is agreed/discussed. If needed, please restore the last consensual version (05:09, 23 December 2010‎). --  Docu  at 11:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sorry, but I failed to see why this cat should be hidden. Only users' personal categories should be hidden. Yann (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think ŠJů has it right, not Docu.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. The fact that nobody happened to come across a unilateral edit made without discussion in a rarely visited meta category does not mean that there is consensus for the change. Meta categories in the content structure are normally not hidden. Looking at the big picture, that's where consensus lies. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closely, you will notice that the category remains visible, not hidden.

As index category, it may use the option to move the category to the second line of categories with the hiddencat attribute. At least, that's is the current consensus on Commons:Categories. In any case, removing it without discussion is not consensual editing. Cheers. --  Docu  at 20:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I was under the impression that HIDDENCAT categories were hidden for everyone except logged-in users who have chosen to show categories marked as hidden under Advanced options in the Appearance section of their preferences. That is how it used to be, I think. Apparently, that's not the case now. (So what does that option actually do?) With that in mind, I don't feel quite as strongly about it one way or the other. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That was my impression as well, but I just tested and, indeed, all users see "hidden" categories. Nonetheless, unless we have a Commons-wide consensus that meta cats should be HIDDENCAT, why are we using it here?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As said, it's stated at Commons:Categories that index categories may use that attribute.

Just because you come across it, doesn't mean you can just delete it from Commons if you think it shouldn't be there. --  Docu  at 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is consensus to "hide" meta categories, it would seem to make more sense to include this as part of {{MetaCat}} than to add it manually to individual categories, would it not? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Airports by name is a flat or index category. As such it's different from most other meta categories (sample: Category:Airports by country). I'm not sure if all of the later should be moved to the second row (i.e. use the hiddencat attribute). If yes, obviously, it would be easier to set through {{MetaCat}} --  Docu  at 05:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The same would apply at least to any "by name" category, right? {{MetaCat}} could parse for that parameter and behave accordingly. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably. To add a parameter, you'd still have to edit every category description page of this subset though. --  Docu  at 06:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to add a new parameter. Most meta categories should already have the criterion parameter set in their {{MetaCat}}. All that would be needed is for the template to check if that parameter is set to "name". —LX (talk, contribs) 11:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

True. I had forgotten about all those parameters. Adding {{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|name|__HIDDENCAT__}} there might work. --  Docu  at 11:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC), edit 11:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We have had this discussion over and over and over and over and over. Docu is obsessed with marking certain index categories HIDDENCAT, despite the fact that he has never obtained consensus for it, and shows no interest in doing so. Commons:Categories is neither policy nor guideline, and merely records in section COM:HIDDENCAT that Docu managed to persuade an admin long ago to edit MediaWiki:Hidden-categories such that in English (and English alone) HIDDENCAT categories are described as "Non-topical/index" on subcategory pages. Rd232 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your POV. --  Docu  at 07:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We still need to solve this. LX would you either restore the last consensual version or implement the suggested solution. --  Docu  at 07:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block KIZENKOV (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings just after the latest one-month block expired. Previous entries: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 9#KIZENKOV and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 7#KIZENKOV. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done 3 months block. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

JCAla (talk · contribs) is calling me PkPshtnist (Pakistani-Pashtunist) [19], which is a racial slur, and I'm not even a Pakistani or a Pashtunist. He or she is also removing tags [20], [21].--Officer (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Yann's dealt with it. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my browser crashes while I tried to post here. :o( Warned. I also reverted his removal of warnings about copyrights. Yann (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not a racial slur but a term describing a political ideology! Just to explain re above, as I wasn't aware of this discussion before. As you may not be aware of the political term used, I guess I have to explain.

In Afghanistan there are four major ethnic groups: Pashtuns (40 %) and Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbek (60 %). There exists an Afghan-Pashtun nationalist party called Afghan Mellat including several high ranking members of the Karzai administration which thinks Pashtuns are the "natural rulers" of Afghanistan and should dominate the other ethnic groups. These Pashtun nationalists are being called Pashtunists - not because of their ethnicity but because of their political stance. As Officer was writing on his user talk the following: "At first there were too many ethnic Tajiks from the north in government positions and that was corrected later. Now the Afghan security forces have too many Tajik and other minority groups. The Taliban (Pashtuns) deal will allow this problem to be fixed." -> I identified him as a follower of that ideology - so it wasn't used or meant as a racial slur but as a description of his political ideology.

This is further being backed up as he seems to be on a mission - not only getting Tajiks and Hazaras removed from the government and security forces - but also getting images of Afghan Tajiks and Hazaras removed from wikicommons - you can see how many of these images he has nominated for deletion. Now he has nominated a picture of w:Amrullah Saleh, an anti-Taliban Afghan Tajik, although all information have been reliably provided. He also seems to be on a crusade against these images (every single one of them of a Tajik and/or Hazara) although in each of these cases the community has already decided to keep them just a couple of days ago.

Also, I wasn't simply removing tags, I was providing missing information and replaced links that had not been working. Thereby the tags became unnecessary. JCAla (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• By revealing to us how you feel about the ethnic w:Pashtuns, your name calling "PkPshtnist" most likely meant a "racist Paki Pashtun" and that is a racial slur. Once again, I'm not a Pakistani or a Pashtun nationalist. Next, you're misleading us with your incorrect estimates on ethnic groups. About my talk page, what I wrote to Geo Swan is what US military experts say.[22]
• I have uploaded many images of Tajiks, Hazaras and other minority ethnic groups of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There often comes someone who uploads obvious stolen images of Ahmad Shah Massoud and Hazara people, and since I'm aware of this I keep watch on that and I'm sure Commons appreciates me. What does "he seems to be on a mission - not only getting Tajiks and Hazaras removed from the government and security forces"? Stop spreading lies about me. What I was saying on my talk page was that the Afghan government is still short of about 150,000 employees and most likely the Pashtun ethnic groups will fill that. This is the plan of Afghan and NATO leaders in order to balance the power and most importantly to end the Taliban insurgency because if not then the Taliban will take over the entire country.[23]--Officer (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that JCAla be blocked because he or she is not only lying to us but is still using the same racial slur ... JCAla: "These Pashtun nationalists are being called Pashtunists - not because of their ethnicity but because of their political stance." That's a lie because nobody calls them this other than those who want to insult them.--Officer (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the full sentence without misrepresentation: "There exists an Afghan-Pashtun nationalist party called Afghan Mellat including several high ranking members of the Karzai administration which thinks Pashtuns are the "natural rulers" of Afghanistan and should dominate the other ethnic groups. These Pashtun nationalists [referring to Afghan Mellat] are being called Pashtunists - not because of their ethnicity but because of their political stance." See w:Afghan Mellat on wikipedia says on ideology: Ethnocentrism and Pashtun nationalism. JCAla (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• By your above statement, you reveal yourself. Nowhere did I write anything about Pashtuns in general or anything even close to how I feel about Pashtuns. I am not interested in ethnicity. I am interested in the character. I gave a direct quote by you, there is nothing I could mispresent there. Certainly the direct quote speaks for itself - and no it is not compareable to what the "American expert" said. You said there were "too many Tajiks and other minority groups" in the Afghan security forces and that the "Taliban [which are Pashtuns] deal will fix that problem". You know, people here may not be familiar with the ongoing debates but I certainly am, I know where this narrative comes from. A "Pashtunist" is an ethnocentrist who talks about how many "Tajik" etc. are in this position or that position and that it constitutes "a problem" and needs to "be fixed". That is exactly what you said. About the percentage of ethnic groups, that is the official estimates by reliable sources, so I don't really know what you are getting at here - but you being offended by numbers just shows you are being political about ethnicity. So, that is why I said "Pashtunist". It's like if someone writes somewhere "there are too many Afro-Americans" here or there and that problem "will be fixed" by "a deal with the KKK". I bet many people from there on would refer to that person as a "white supremacist" - and certainly not because they mean it as a racial slur against white people but because they refer to a political ideology. JCAla (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Instead of apologizing in anyway, JCAla is continuing and repeating his racial slurs. I have said that don't belong to any political party (or gang).
  • He or she is repeatedly removing tags [24]
  • He or she keeps misrepresenting the ethnic composition of Afghanistan. Where is 40% Pashtun and 60% Tajik/Hazara as he mentions? Most sources say Hazaras are about 9% and Tajiks are 20 to 27% in Afghanistan.
  • I don't want to comment on his KKK, white supremacist, and Afro-American stuff because that is irrelevant to his/her accusation of me being a "Pashtunist."
  • I was telling user:Geo Swan on my talk page that Afghanistan's current problem (regarding the war) is believed to be the misbalance of ethnic groups in its security forces, which is what we often hear from high-ranking US military experts on the ground.[25] [26] JCAla decided to use this to justify his racial slur (Pak-Pashtunist) towards me.--Officer (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Definition of Pashtunist
2. Why so sensitive about the ethnic composition? ("These (Northern Alliance/Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek) leaders who fought with embedded Special Forces to initially defeat the Taliban represent over 60-percent of the Afghan people, yet are being entirely disregarded by the Obama and Karzai Administrations in negotiations.")
3. Don't come up with opinion pieces by one US "expert" who has been highly criticized and controversial. Nothing of what so-called expert said proved true according to other regional experts. See, your analysis - and you explicitly said it was your opinion - of what you think is the problem and the reason for the war - "too many Tajiks" being in the security forces - is the evidence for everything I explained above. You proclaim that the existence of "too many Tajiks" in the security forces is the reason for the Afghanistan war and it can be solved through a deal with the Taliban (which are Pashtuns) - whatever that means. Tell me what were the calmest years for Afghanistan in the recent past? 2002-2004 when the government was in fact heavily Tajik-dominated. Since the government has recently become Pashtun-dominated (as you said the government problem had already been fixed) has there been a decrease in Taliban attacks? No, there has been an increase. The war is for three reasons: Pakistan's support to the Taliban, government corruption and ethnicities letting themselves getting instrumentalized versus each other. Tell me when did Pakistan start to back militants to destabalize Afghanistan? Yeah, exactly, in the great old times of the w:Durrani monarchy when Afghanistan had a Pashtun-dominated (no judging on "Pashtun-dominated", just to explain to Mr. Officer why his theory is flawed!) grand military. Why? Ever heard of the Durand Line dispute, strategic depth versus India, trans-Afghanistan economic highways, Central Asian natural resources and dreams of the great Islamic empire with the black banners controlled by Pakistan/Saudi? So, assume there were no Tajiks+Aimaks, no Hazaras and no Uzbeks+Turkmen (no 60 % of the population) inside the security forces at all, would Pakistan accept a patriotic Pashtun nationalist security force (which in the past leaned either towards Russia or India) as an replacement for the Taliban? No. They will only accept the Taliban or a power hungry monster such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar which they can control through their misguided Saudi-financed interpretation of Islam brainwashing them into destroying development in Afghanistan and thereby keeping it as a vasal state. Remember they did not only kill the Tajik anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, they also killed the Pashtun anti-Taliban leader Abdul Haq. JCAla (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• • That article has no references at all, and was most likely created by the banned Wikipedian Beh-nam who was known to use those names. [27] I remembe him coming here in 2008 to argue Tajik/Pashtun stuff and calling me racist.
  • You misquoted the Americans. They actually said "These leaders... represent over 60-percent of the Afghan people..." This is no way to determine the percentage of ethnic groups of Afghanistan. Who said that w:Northern Alliance leaders were only Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek? There may be many unreliable news reports with incorrect percents. For example, The New York Times [28] states that Tajiks are 9% in Afghanistan but we generally avoid this kind of discussion here because this is not an encyclopedia. Following wrong information led NATO-Afghan government to hold white flags to Pakistan and the Taliban.
  • Back to you keep calling me a Pashtunist. Why are you keep refering to me with this when I'm uploading images of all ethnic groups?
  • This is not a place to discuss or settle political issues, we only deal with images and copyright issues here.--Officer (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

1. The article was not created by Behnam, it was created by a user called KhostiPakhtoon (Pashtun from Khost).
2. No, I did not misquote the Americans. Read the full article, it talks about the w:National Front of Afghanistan (current reformation of the Northern Alliance) which is led by a Tajik, a Hazara and an Uzbek. Yes, you are right the Northern Alliance up until 2001 which was led by w:Ahmad Shah Massoud did indeed include Pashtuns like w:Abdul Qadir (Afghan leader) (whose wikipedia article I contributed to a lot).
3. I referred to you as a Pashtunist one time because of what you wrote on your talk page.
4. Sometimes context is needed.

JCAla (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• 1. Beh-nam was behind the "KhostiPakhtoon" name in 2008 (see w:User:KhostiPakhtoon and many other of his aliases at w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Beh-nam). He is not a Pashtun but a Tajik from Toronto, Canada. The way you defended him sounds like you know him. He did have this one handicapped Afghan guy friend (Dost Mohammad Khairy [29]) who had an anti-Pashtun / pro-Northern Alliance blog page, and I think you may be that crippled guy from the state of Arizona. He describes himself as a reporter for w:Northern Alliance.

  2. You added "(Northern Alliance/Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek)" and that is misquoting because they did not write that. I hate to say this but you appear to me as someone who is deluded and against the truth.

  3. It's wrong to give people such names based on their views and opinions. If you want to know someone's nationality, ethnicity or other stuff just ask them on their talk page or email them.--Officer (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Instead of interminable political debates, how about JCAla agrees not to use the term "Pashtunist" or similar again, and Officer agrees that JCAla didn't intend it as a slur? And on the "removing of tags" - if you disagree with the removal of a {{No permission since}} or similar tag, just send it to DR. (None of the removals I've seen look wrong, BTW.) Rd232 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not a racial slur, rather a political term. But there is no need to use it again if Officer says he is no Pashtun nationalist. So, ok, Rd232. :) JCAla (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I don't like it. I'm not politically involved with any party (or gang). I'm not here for political purpose but as a hobby.--Officer (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So it's a political slur rather than a racial slur? Still means you shouldn't use it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a term for a political ideology, a synonym for "Pashtun nationalist" (like "British nationalist" or "Canadian nationalist" or "Chinese nationalist"). JCAla (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop making BS up, "Pashtunist" is considered a racial slur especially when it's coming from the mind of an anti-Pashtun Tajik ultra-nationalist. It's the same as calling an Iranian an "Iranist", something that they don't like. I upload images of all ethnic groups and from various countries so for anyone to label me a nationalist is really stupid.--Officer (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is neither a racial nor a political slur, it is the synonym for "Pashtun nationalist". And I already wrote above, that I see no further need in describing you as such (if you say you are not a Pashtun nationalist anyway). Which however leads to the question who you are referring to as an "anti-Pashtun Tajik ultra-nationalist"? But, I guess, you were just using that in a general way for our enlightment. ;o) JCAla (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block the brazilian user Guilherme Griebeler (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for continuing to upload copyright violations (via disordered copy&paste Google) in spite of multiple warnings. --Gunnex (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 1 week. --PierreSelim (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Every one of the many calligraphy images uploaded by User:Bakkouz has been a copyright violation, and even after many deletion discussions, the user does not understand that there is any problem with what he has done. (See, for example, this discussion where he claims that any deletion is unfair because there is no specific evidence that the image he copied was in fact copied.) I propose that he is blocked indefinitely, at least until he says he understands the severity of the problem and promises not to upload further copied work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, as soon as his copyright violation images were deleted on commons, he immediately just reuploaded them to ar.wiki (google translate indicates that they were uploaded on ar.wiki on March 2).[30] Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Now he is warned, next time it's a block. --PierreSelim (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Tasvor (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations, now using license laundering, in spite of multiple warnings. See also Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images#Supercentenaria. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 06:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done for 1 week--Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Every single one of Prescotte's uploads has been deleted as copyright violations, despite numerous warnings both here at the Commons as well as on the English Wikipedia. This user has just uploaded a bunch of new photos, and at least two of the uploads are copyright violations. Given that every single photo he has uploaded has been a copy vio, I do believe this user should be blocked, and his current contributions should be deleted. Thanks, Aoi (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done User blocked for 1 month. Images deleted. --M0tty (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This user has resurfaced again as Surf100, and has continued to upload obviously copyrighted images about Honolulu's TheBus system, and then adds these copy violation photos to the English Wikipedia's "TheBus" article. See, for example, this diff on Wikipedia compared to this edit by Prescotte. The images the user uploads are different, but the intent is the same. Is there enough here to block this new account and delete their copyrighted contributions? Thanks, Aoi (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I confirmed that they are the same user. Blocked Surf100 indef, nuked all the images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block Douglasdutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. --viniciusmc (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

stefan4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) got upset at me over at en.wiki for opposing some of his listings of files for possible deletion. In retaliation he started going through every single file I uploaded at en.wiki and tagging/nominating them for deletion and when he got done, he came here to do the same. The clearest evidence that he's targeting me directly and not simply here to do go image work is this edit [31]. He nominates a couple of my images for deletion because they show Korean buildings, but then goes to another user's image which is clearly a Korean building, and cleans it up rather than nominating it for deletion. This shows an intent to directly harass me and not that he was simply doing normal image work. As such, I'd like him blocked until we're sure the harassment will not continue.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get upset at English Wikipedia, but your comments in the discussions at English Wikipedia suggested that you didn't understand image policies, so I checked your contributions and proposed the deletion of some suspicious images. I couldn't find any date of construction for the Lotte building, so I'm not sure if it should be deleted, although I assume that it should, since it looks recent. The deletion requests are not any different to other deletion requests for FOP reasons that I've made, such as this or this. Or this if you want a building. --Stefan4 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They're different because you immediately and directly went through every image I uploaded to wikipedia and then came here to do the same. This is a focused effort completely different from your normal pattern of editing because I opposed you and called you out for assuming bad faith of several users. Some of your nominations made no sense like nominating images that were in place during good article reviews and deemed okay, or other images where you clearly didn't understand their purpose (which was clearly written on the articles in question, and yet your deletion rationale doesn't seem to indicate that you either read it or understood it). This is clear directed harassment and nothing more.--Crossmr (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see stefan4's name here. Just after a quick view of the diff and of the DR started I think there is a misunderstanding. Crossmr, if you take a picture of a building you are making a derivative work of the building. Such pictures are ok in some countries due to Freedom of panorama and not ok in others due to the lack of it. I see nothing wrong in stefan4's nomination. Reading this, I'm not impressed by the request, and I don't think we should do anything. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear in my nominations. I think I always included a link to COM:FOP#Korea (South), which describes the situation in South Korea, but maybe I should have explained it more clearly.

Note that I'm going to be away during a large part of the weekend, so I might not be able to write any further comments until tomorrow afternoon. I'm bringing a mobile phone, but it isn't very convenient for writing long messages. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding. his rapid fire nominations were a direct result of my opposing some of his listings at en.wikipedia. His nominates were made directly in retaliation for that. Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial, it's the harassment that lead up to them that I'm bringing here, which is further evidenced by his just fixing someone else's image while nominating mine. He was trying to bully me into silence on en.wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The rightness of requesting deletion of the files is a different point to the interaction between users. If a user has (a good faith reason) for thinking a file isn't acceptable on Commons it should be nominated for deletion. If you are in dispute with a user, you shouldn't respond by going through their contributions and picking holes in them. Systematically going through a user's uploads, as a direct result of a dispute on-wiki, it tantamount to harassment and inflames the dispute - which is a bad thing. (Evidence of dispute please?)

That doesn't mean files unacceptable to Commons should be kept, but starting high-speed DRs of work by a user you are in active dispute with is not the way to get them deleted.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

that's exactly my point. If I misunderstood panorama or whatever, fine. But I basically had my day ruined having to deal with all Stefan threw at me because I opposed him on en.wiki. The issue started over at En.wiki Specifically on March 23rd files [32], where I opposed several of his listings, however I didn't just oppose some of his listings, I opposed some others, so there was no initial move on my part to single him out. I felt he was assuming bad faith of users over very old files, because the original pages had disappeared, and he was then, years later, taking them to task to prove something they probably did years ago when they uploaded the image originally. Additionally he seemed to be going out of his way to paint one user a serial copyright violator when their talk page said nothing of the sort. After a back and forth over a couple images, I started getting multiple notifications on my talk page over tagged and nominated files. I believe it was right after the exchange on "File:Rollatini.jpg" that he started going through my contributions. In 23 minutes he added 6 notifications to my talk page there, [33], despite my posting to his page to tell him to stop. I then started getting e-mail notifications as he came over to commons and started here. I highlighted the fact above that despite going through and nominating some of my images for deletion, he went and intentionally didn't nominate another user's image for deletion. Despite it having the same issue he proposed mine for. That showed very clearly that he was trying to harass me, and really wasn't just doing honest image maintenance in the course of his normal editing.--Crossmr (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like your initial recent interaction was this, where you seem to ignore one of the main points of the nomination, displaying a lack of understanding of derivative works. You also begin by assuming that the nomination was made (by another user) in bad faith, which seems ironic given your insistence on reminding others of the importance of assuming good faith. The first of your responses to a nomination made by Stefan4 (Stefan2 on English Wikipedia) seems to have been this. I see no sign of Stefan4 being upset. The emotion in this case seems to come only from your side, with repeated explicit assumptions of bad faith.

To go through a user's contributions when there is reason to believe that they may be systematically making some mistake (such as adding unsourced facts to Wikipedia or uploading non-free images to Commons) is pretty standard practice and is not indicative of an assumption of bad faith. Assuming that our fellow contributors act in good faith and with the project's best interests in mind does not mean that we have to assume that they don't make mistakes. (In fact, I wonder if you've actually read en:Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)

In this case, you volunteered your opinion in a copyright-related discussion. This exposed a lack of understanding of some of the finer points of the area. It's not unreasonable to think that this might lead you to upload some files that are not in compliance with copyright laws and policies. Stefan4 apparently thought so and looked into the matter, and he seems to have been justified in doing so. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because he doesn't seem upset doesn't mean he wasn't trying to harass me into silence. Most of my opposes of him were based on his assumption of bad faith, not really on technical grounds. Most of his nominations centred around old broken flickr pages or the sort and his assumption that an uploader made an error copying the licensing data. I could believe his honest intentions more if: He didn't follow my uploads to another project, he didn't appear to be in a such a hurry to tag/flag/nominate my images that he was make several mistakes, especially on the nominations for deletion, that when I told him to stop he actually engaged in discussion rather than continuing to add notices to my talk page. He in fact did not stop until I took it to a noticeboard on en.wiki. He may not be using any foul or or aggressive language but the intent to harass was extremely clear. For the record I opposed 3 of his nominations on technical, and most of them weren't direct opposes, but questions of his interpretation. I opposed 8 of his nominations on his assumption of bad faith, and I opposed one because he clearly misunderstood what he was reading. In fact I've seen him entirely misunderstand/not be clear about something several times in this process.

When he listed File:Ivan Milosevic (Luqa FC).jpg he wrote Dubious source: "Facebook, Ivan Milosevic". Except that's false. The user didn't write Source: Facebook. The user who uploaded the image clearly wrote:

I made it on the game against Gzira Utd

Previously published: Facebook, Ivan Milosevic

He clearly wrote that he previously put the photo on facebook, not that he got the photo from facebook.

In terms of mistakes on my images, he went through and without explanation tagged a couple of images to be reduced, however they'd already been tagged and declined with reason. Mainly that shrinking them would make the usability of the image too low. They would no longer serve the purpose because people couldn't see the pertinent details clearly. Re-adding tags which had been removed with explanation without further explaining why he thought there was a need shows harassment. He was simply looking for anything he could do to attack my images for opposing him.

• When he nominated [34] he shows a complete and fundamental lack of understanding of the use of the image. He seems to think "any free image of the team would suffice" when the image is being used to demonstrate a specific event in the team's history. I have tons of images of that team that I took myself, however none of them would be relevant since it's the event being talked about and not the team. He also goes so far as to flat-out lie and claim that the image is not the subject of critical commentary when it has a full caption and discussion of the event and it's significance in the prose.
• When he nominated [35], he again just makes stuff up by linking to some random application description, and yes, while the article is not about clothes it is about the team and there is a section on their jerseys and the image is discussed throughout that section as the changes in the jersey are talked about.
• When he listed this [36] he claims no license is given on the article, when it clearly states it is free and open source.

So to summarize: We have him lying in his nominations, linking to irrelevant pages about applications as deletion reasons for files, tagging files with tags that have been declined, following me across projects, and you want me to think that's not harassment?--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, for reasons I've already explained, I don't think you're being harassed. I've responded to some of your concerns referenced here at the original discussions. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most notably you failed to address the flat-out lie by him. As I said, some images may have issues, but it doesn't excuse him going after every single image I've ever touched and going so far as to lie to find reasons to nominate things or re-adding tags to images which have had them removed just to tie me up even further. You have a very twisted definition of harassment.--Crossmr (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't comment on en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 24#File:Changchunfight.jpg because I'm not familiar enough with English Wikipedia's non-free content practices. Whether the image "significantly increases the reader's understanding of the topic" and whether references to the image constitute "critical commentary" is largely a matter of opinion, and I think it's pretty rude to call someone a liar for having a different opinion than your own. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Any time I've seen it applied what I've included has been more than enough except in Stefan's opinion regarding my usage. But it's hardly the only incident. He thrice claimed a user had multiple copyvios on his talk page when listing the image and that was his basis for "doubting" the user actually owned the image. However a 2 second read of the talk page revealed that that was not remotely the case.[37] At best he was lazy and sloppy in misrepresenting this user's edits, at worst it's an outright lie to color the discussion. Stefan seems to have a habit of fudging the truth when making his nominations. Perhaps someone needs to go through all his edits with a fine tooth comb. Another image of mine he listed someone quickly pointed out that it was permitted under Korean copyright law, so it would seem Stefan's interpretation of image use isn't infallible or absolute, and I can't see how that gives him license to do what he did and the manner in which he did it. Again: It's one thing to nominate something for deletion if it needs it, it's another thing to go through every image and try and make something stick, regardless of whether or not the image has any issue. Which is what he's done. He's gone far and above with my images which is what constitutes the harassment. repeating unnecessary tags, applying a much higher standard to my images than anyone else's, fudging the truth, and directly going to nominate my images for deletion while leaving other similar images from other users alone. That is where he goes from nominating in good faith to directed harassment.--Crossmr (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm back again. There are plenty of references to deletion requests and other pages. To make it simple, I have added a few links at the top. To my knowledge, they represent all cases discussed here so far. The file pages are in the list because of reduction requests.

First of all, I must say that I am sorry for making you upset because of my nominations. That was never my plan; I was merely looking for images not in compliance with policy.

Secondly, you were complaining that I was searching for your uploads. When I read your comments about the Warhammer 40,000 image discussed on the English Wikipedia, it seemed that you might not know what a derivative work is, so I thought that there might be a possibility that some of your uploads might be copyright violations. It seems quite common to check users' uploads in such cases. Sometimes, I check recent uploads at Special:ListFiles to check new files, and if something looks wrong, I often check the uploader's other uploads in case there are more potential errors. I was never thinking of any retaliation and I wasn't angry at you or anything. It was just a check of some of your images. After checking your Wikipedia uploads, I ended up in a hockey-related article which contained an image from Commons which looked like a freedom of panorama issue and it was uploaded to Commons where such images can't be kept. If I hadn't seen that image, I would probably not have noticed your Commons uploads.

Third, there are some comments about non-free files at the English-language Wikipedia. This is related to multiple criteria. I'm writing some general comments here, and will comment individual images on Wikipedia wherever I feel that it is necessary.

• Image resolution: Crossmr complained that I applied en:Template:Non-free reduce to images which he felt didn't need reduction. I didn't check the image history, so I didn't see that he had already removed that template from the file information pages. I added the template using the Twinkle tool, which doesn't allow any custom edit summary but uses the same standardised summary in all cases. I based the decision to add this template on en:WP:NFC#Image resolution which states that the image resolution of non-free files should be as small as possible. The guideline suggests 320 x 240 pixels and 250 x 400 pixels for certain types of images, but Crossmr's images have a much greater resolution. Generally speaking, a non-free file would be used for the purpose of illustrating an article, so I would say that there would be no need to have a non-free file in a resolution greater than that used in the article. Images are frequently reduced automatically by User:DASHBot, and if I remember correctly, the bot reduces tagged images if the resolution is greater than 160,000 pixels, and the result after reduction is, I believe, generally similar to the suggested 320 x 240 pixels. Crossmr complained that it is already impossible to read some of the text at en:File:Mposter.jpg. I agree that the text is partially unreadable; on the "coming soon" line, I am unable to read the text immediately following the name
  공효진
  (Kong Hyo-jin), and there is even smaller text on some lines below. The guideline suggests that if there are text elements which are important, it is better to quote the relevant text on the file information page so that the image still can be kept at a low resolution. However, I would say that in this case, the information on the film poster isn't really necessary. There is a list of the main actors and actresses, but these names are already in the Wikipedia article on the film. The text on the images looks unencyclopædic.
• Critical commentary and excessive image use: Non-free images on the English-language Wikipedia must be subject to critical commentary, and there should not be too many non-free images. I think that these issues may be better explained in the deletion requests, so I will comment on them there instead.

You wrote that I made a mistake in claiming that a Korean visa wasn't free. I must say that I wasn't aware of the exception quoted by the user on that page. It isn't mentioned at COM:L#South Korea either, so it isn't easy to find. Looking at the text of the copyright legislation on Wikisource, I am not certain that the exception applies to a visa, but more about that in the discussion on Wikipedia. I noticed that you had claimed that you made the visa, but it is a creation of the Korean government. You might have scanned the visa, but that doesn't make you the creator of the underlying work.

The deletion requests on Commons were mostly centred around freedom of panorama. The lack of freedom of panorama is a common cause for deletion on Commons, and there are special categories for freedom of panorama deletion requests related to some countries, for example Category:France FOP cases and Category:Russian FOP cases. According to your user page, you are a Canadian living in Sŏul. South Korea and Canada are two very different countries in terms of freedom of panorama. South Korea limits freedom of panorama to non-commercial purposes, so you need to wait until a building or statue has had its copyright expired by age before you can upload a photo of it here. Canada, on the other hand, has full freedom of panorama for 3D works, so you may freely take photos of buildings and statues and upload them here.

Again, I am sorry that you may have been feeling uncomfortable with my reporting of some of your images for deletion, and I hope that you will feel better soon. Feel free to tell me if there are any issues which you think haven't been addressed. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned actions speak louder than words. Despite his insistence that he's not doing this to harass me [38] edits like this tell a completely different story. This is yet another blatant lie, and there really is no other way to describe it. After being told that he had a fundamental misunderstanding of the image and its use (since his deletion rationale didn't connect at all), he comes back and claims the image isn't discussed in the article at all, yet there are two full sentences detailing the incident in the season in which it occurred with 2 citations in addition to the full caption under the image. This is harassment and it needs to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not about enwp. As for the deletion requests on Commons, do not waste your time on complaining, just address the issues raised at the DRs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's about harassment that started there and continued here.--Crossmr (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

All that proves is that (i) you don't understand en:Wikipedia:NFCC#8 (ii) you don't understand that the deletion rationale of "Not subject to critical commentary" relates to the image, not the thing the image is illustrating and (iii) you've dropkicked AGF out of the window. It's about time you went and retrieved it, because Stefan has made considerable effort to explain his actions, and you've responded with nothing but furious attacks. Rd232 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh no. Stefan clearly says: Not even the event is mentioned. Do you dispute that? Do you further dispute that the following text has been in the article since december 2009 [39]On December 3, Changchun was involved in a bench-clearing brawl against the Nikko Ice Bucks. Five Ice Bucks players received game misconduct penalties while seven Changchun players received the same and one Changchun player, Fu Nan, received a match penalty.[14] The league later suspended all of the penalized players for one game, except for Fu who received a two game suspension.[15] he claims the event isn't even mentioned in the article when it clearly has been for over 2 years.--Crossmr (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A perfect example of the AGF issue. If you were assuming good faith, you'd put down "Not even the event is mentioned." as an obvious error. Why would someone deliberately state something easily disprovable, which isn't even essential to their case? Apply some AGF, and some logic as well. Rd232 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done — The request is to block Stefan4 and after reading the arguments, I see no reason to do so. This board here is not to make longish discussion about blocks; it is for quickly requesting a block or a protection. Problems between users should be discussed on COM:AN/U. Also all the en.wp stuff does not belong to Commons and if you would like to contest the deletion requests with valid arguments or research, you are welcome to do so. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 15:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This morning, the Commons user (rather a single-purpose account) EuroUpdate2012Femen (talk · contribs) uploaded two pictures in order to spam them in Ukrainian Wikipedia articles, both from an account and, after being blocked, from different IPs (example). As long as the pictures have no actual use in the encyclopedia and are used for massive vandalism, I request the preventive block of his account and deletion of the files to avoid further disruption. Note that in one of them the wrong attribution was found, as well as there's no evidence for the correct status in the other. Thank you. --Microcell (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted both images as copyvios. Courcelles 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've marked many files uploaded by this user for deletion because of the copyright violation. He confronted me with personal attacks on this DR page he has posted the following text:

LMFAO!!! for a guy who doesn't even know what Rofl means, u sure do have a mouth. And even if my work gets deleted i'll still stick around and trust me i'll make sure that your existence here is unquestionably challenged! Good luck and get a life.--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I request all copyrighted works be deleted and this user be blocked.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

 Done, see [40]. --M0tty (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please ensure that this user does not resort to this attitude in future against any other user. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

I am very sorry for my bot's false edits that were made recently, but it is the first such case for more than 2 years of my work. I run it for collecting information about files from the categories, but due to the wrong official pywikipedia engine's update (and latest official versions still does not working correctly) behavior of the script has been violated. As soon as I saw the problem I interrupted to work and immediately drew attention to the errors on the channel #cvn-sw, and asked for help for speed reverting of edits. Collegues from the ru-wiki helped me with quick undo and at the same time Commons administrator Blacklake was notified, and nobody asked any additional actions after edits' cancelling. 3 hours later after incident the bot account and my IP adresses has been blocked by another administrator. I ask to unblock bot account and promise not to allow such actions in the future. -- Jackie (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"I run it for collecting information about files from the categories" – Why should we unblock the bot if you just query for information. This makes no sense at all. -- RE rillke questions? 12:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Earlier I already move images with using commonshelper and now try to learn how correctly transfer images with using pywikipedia, but a too small free time and I don't know exactly when to try to do test edits. I must do it from main account? I'm a not vandal and approached to the bot tool with the responsibility. I am really very sorry for the bot malfunction, but fixed all contribution as quickly as could, and did not think it will cause a large problems. -- Jackie (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please move this request to Commons:Bots/Requests as suggested by High Contrast.[41] "If you want to run a bot on Commons, you must get permission first." --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I assume that this file has not yet been deleted as a duplicate because anyone processing the duplicates queue has noted recent edits and recognises that there is some controversy (controversy initiated by me ;-), but just in case, I am posting here. I ask that this file not be deleted until sources and copyright of it and the related SVG are clarified. I have been unable to remove the duplicate tag or revert to the original larger version (see edit history ;-), but perhaps the file can be protected to give a heads-up to anyone who goes to process it. If the original file is indeed a simple rendering of our SVG, then deletion is not controversial, from the dates of the uploads this does not appear to be the case. But both the PNG and SVG may well have originated from the the same source EPS. see also User_talk:Fry1989#File:Logo de la République française 300 dpi.png and Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_of_worms:_EPSs_and_SVGs. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no copyright controversy and no clarification needed. Read the license. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the controversy of which I speak is over nominating the file as a duplicate. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why would you even mention copyright? In any case, if they're from the same EPS, it's a dupe, and I believe it is. 21:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Ok cancel this request for file protection, the duplicate tag has been withdrawn. The file may or may not be generated from the SVG or original EPS, but it may be better for us if it is actually from an independent source as our right to use the EPS and any SVG generated from it is dubious, but that discussion is for a different forum. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please block VENKATESHafx (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. One of my colleagues may adjust the duration. -- RE rillke questions? 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This user has uploaded several images of US Presidents tagged with {{Self}} when it is admitted in the description that they are all downloads from elsewhere and at best are wrongly tagged or at worst copyvios. Nthep (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I see 5 files and no warning. -- RE rillke questions? 17:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've only just spotted them, report here first, warn 2nd. Nthep (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you have it backwards. Warn first, then come here if and only if he makes additional bad uploads. No Admin should block a new user for five bad uploads without warning the user first.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Impersonator of en:Lindsey Vonn --180.183.105.198 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Denniss--Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Regarding his edits, I'm that user, editing as an IP. Although it is not admitted that I can edit as an IP of a blocked user, ItsMeBrandonSky pretended to upload copyrighted images of the adult-cartoon series Happy Tree Friends. Flippy and Giggles are characters from HTF (copyright © 2011 Mondo Media). Please consider granting the unblock request I made on my own user talk page at User_talk:ItsMeBrandonSky. PLEASE DO NOT BLOCK THIS IP UNTIL THE DISCUSSION IS COMPLETED AND THE USER IS UNBLOCKED. --201.29.99.20 21:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your IP is now blocked. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The following are either sockpuppets that have been confirmed through en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sabeeel43/Archive or  ducks. Please block and nuke uploads:

• Charming Paki (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SULutil • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Cool.agent1234 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SULutil • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Cool Angel (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SULutil • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Faisalabadian (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SULutil • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Sabi143 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SULutil • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Sabi153 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SULutil • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

—LX (talk, contribs) 08:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Sorted I've not bothered with the really old ones - he will have forgotten the passwords by now. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the user needs to be blocked for repeatedly and intentionally uploading an obviously non-free image: ,

which needs to be deleted again. See h talk page! thx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and file deleted. Yann (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User uploaded six copyvios today, the last two were after I gave a warning. User has been blocked once before for the same, every upload has been a copyvio. January (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Morning Sunshine (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Stenny21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User uploads obviously unfree images grabbed from the internet without any license tag. I gave a warning on 28 March, the user has just uploaded one more, File:30266 article.jpg. January (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

77.230.223.227 (talk · contribs) was blocked two days ago for repeatedly removing maintenance tags. He continued this behaviour today. Please consider blocking him again. Mathonius (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. Mathonius (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kill Nazis (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes)

This user adds statements to pages in the User and User talk namespaces, claiming that certain users are Nazis. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally: the user removed this block request twice from COM:AN/B and re-added Nazi statements to various pages after I removed them. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Cambalachero (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I've now reverted all of his edits except those to his own talk page. I see that you deleted his file upload. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The blocked user Kill Nazis (talk · contribs) is abusing his talk page access to make threats. Please consider adjusting the block (and change it to an indefinite one?). Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There was also a similar edit by 71.107.137.214 (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) on a talk page. This might be Kill Nazi's IP address. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mathonius,  Done. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

3 days for the IP. It's probably the same guy. --PierreSelim (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering the severity of this case, a CU should check whether IP and User:Kill Nazis are identical. If yes, he should be reported to his provider. --Túrelio (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OMG, our absolutely idiotic vandalism filter even prevents to add the next account of this vandal, created a few minutes ago: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kill_German_scum. I request a CU for all 3 accounts. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a few other accounts that may be related. I've e-mailed Túrelio a list. Mathonius (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But our "whatever filter" is even more idiotic than this vandal, as it doesn't let me (an admin) save the related CU request. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the filter but both batches of accounts have been CU'd, 1 additional one blocked from the first batch earlier (& reverted). The newest batch are using an open proxy and that is not blocked and all accounts on there are blocked/locked. Watching on and off anyway. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Filter is fixed (I think) - excludes admins now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Herby, it finally worked. --Túrelio (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please block MadonnaFan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings (18 copyvios since their "final warning"). —LX (talk, contribs) 10:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done by Herbythyme 10:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

why is File:Maja e Thatë (2406 m) in the Albanian Alps.jpg protected. The categories are not appropriate. Thank you --Albinfo (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's in a DYK at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. All WP:EN main page files are automatically protected while they are up to prevent vandalism. DYKs last only a day, so the protection will be gone tomorrow.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The following are either sockpuppets that have been confirmed through fa:Sockpuppets of پارسا آملی (Mazandiran) or  ducks. Please block and nuke uploads and delete recent files:

• Mchto (talk · contribs)
• Mirasir (talk · contribs)

if you need more information about this user, plz see these links:

• Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mazandiran
• Mazandiran_sockpuppets_Sharmitavox_and_Amardian
• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_34#User:Northiran

Best regards.--Mehdi^Talk 14:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Mchto (talk · contribs) obvious sock of Mazandiran, blocked indef.

Being a sock does not necessarily mean that uploads are not OK -- these need a DR.

• Mirasir (talk · contribs) not at all obvious, no contributions to Commons, not blocked.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mehdi^Talk 15:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please block my account indefinitly but without autoblock (I want to use another account name in the future), and delete my user pages.--Michael Metzger (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:6. клас is a sock of User:Fadams, evading block to add poorly-drawn files. This username (6. клас) is also blocked as a sock at enwiki, bgwiki and species, although the master account at enwiki has a different name than Fadams. Koumz (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and blocked. This is one that probably should be globally locked on Meta I would think. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The sock account, yes. The master appears to have mentors (or something like it) and to be working at least somewhat productively on the Bulgarian wikis, so if we can convince him/her to stay there and use only the one account until/unless he/she gains the understanding of how not to be a disruption, that would be a win for all, I think. Koumz (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please protect this file as it has several thousand transclusions across the projects (there are 5000+ on English Wikipedia alone). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Move and upload protected. Killiondude (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The image File:Life of St. George crop.jpg is slated to appear on the EN main page in the Did you know feature within the next 24 hours. Cascading protection no longer seems to be occurring for these images -- can this one please be protected? Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with EN Did you know queue, how long shall the protection stays ? --PierreSelim (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Doneupload/move protected for 1 week MorganKevinJ^(talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that's the main task of KrinkleBot -- RE rillke questions? 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The source, permission, and description was just random letters, but the image had a Creative Commons license Please undelete the file. --189.70.92.232 04:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Beside of the fact, that this is the wrong place to request undeletion, it would be totally unjustified, as the uploader wasn't the author (claimed to be "gfdg") and therefore the license was bogus. In addition, also this edit of your, is vandalism. --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The file was also a copyright violation at http://files.vbulletin.com/doc_images/intro_logo.jpg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BrandonSkyPimenta (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) is evading his block by editing with 189.70.92.232 (talk · contribs). Please consider blocking this IP address as well. Mathonius (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment See this checkuser request as well. :) Trijnstel_talk 16:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

PU1JFC (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

User has been repeatedly warned for copyright violations, but problems continue - eg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Córrego do Indaiá.jpg and File:Correios CEP Fonte Codigo de Barras - PU1JFC.jpg. Some kind of block may be needed (he's never been blocked). Rd232 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably, now just looking through his contributions rate, I would say 2 months is a good duration, he should see the block and may be this time the message will be heard. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact this user is currently inactive and not all his uploads have been identified as copyvios I slightly tend to postpone this discussion. →Nagy 15:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not inactive anymore. Could you please verify if File:Córrego do Indaiá - Petrópolis - PU1JFC.jpg is the same as File:Córrego do Indaiá.jpg and if File:Correios CEP 22011-080 - Codigo de Barras - PU1JFC.jpg is the same as File:Correios CEP Fonte Codigo de Barras - PU1JFC.jpg ? --viniciusmc (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please block AnthonyAngrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and delete all uploads as copyright infrigements.

This is the same person as AnthonyWAngrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See here for other blocks and the user's deleted contributions for obvious abuse on this particular account. Osiris (temp) (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked Bidgee (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Did he abuse multiple account on Commons ? Otherwise I don't think we should block indef for things done on other projects. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't talking about abuse on other projects, just on commons. Osiris (temp) (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I was notified[42] by User:Rex Sueciæ, admin and 'crat on :sv, that SlavicB (talk · contribs) has now been blocked on :sv and identified as a sockpuppet of MrMm (talk · contribs), who is already blocked since January 2012 on Commons for the same problem. Should SlavicB (talk · contribs) also be blocked on Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should, as MrMm (talk · contribs) is blocked for "abusing multiple accounts" amd therefore SlavicB (talk · contribs) should be blocked too. Trijnstel_talk 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the account indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts to evade a block. --PierreSelim (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please block Mr.felipekuhnleao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. --viniciusmc (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please block Milton Caldeira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. --viniciusmc (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done for a week --Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dr.felipekuhnleao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr.felipekuhnleao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple accounts, block evasion. "Mr.felipekuhnleao" is the newest account and was blocked on pt.wiki for that same reason. --viniciusmc (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 DoneOne is indef, the other extended to a month. --Denniss (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This time with a copyvio. User:Yasen igra See this archived thread for more background if necessary. Koumz (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked (1 month) new user Jesu el1 (talk · contribs) after I found that 6 of his as of yet 9 uploads were clearly Flickr-washing via the Flickr-account Jesu el1, which is likely his own and to which all these images had been uploaded today and yesterday. --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the block, also he was already reported here.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 20:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I hadn't seen this before. --Túrelio (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sedayeman (talk · contribs) and RashidHaghHagh (talk · contribs) are rather obvious new socks of Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk · contribs). I blocked Sedayeman on en-wp earlier today, after he tried to recreate the same articles earlier Amir.Hossein socks had created. RashidHaghHagh appeared immediately after, trying the same thing. Sedayeman uploaded at least one clear copyvio here earlier today, and has now been reuploading other images, the same I speedied earlier on en-wp; as usual they are old Iranian football photographs with unclear copyright status. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Practically Confirmed, as well as Мирослав Блажевић (talk · contribs) and Мирослав Блажевић2 (talk · contribs). As such, I blocked and implemented a rangeblock. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Pauv 10 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) User insist on uploading clearly copyrighted pictures of Argentine celebrities and famous football players. His latest contributios are clearly not his, and he has a full history of submitting this kind of pictures.

 User given final warning and images deleted. Also template the obvious copyright vios as speedy and not deletion request. Bidgee (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop it. --  Docu  at 18:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done: I've blocked it and left the owner a message (permalink). Thanks for your report. Mathonius (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Unblocked it after communicating with owner, see talk page. Mathonius (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Both add same spam--Motopark (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. All pages are deleted now and I blocked both accounts indef. Trijnstel_talk 20:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked this user for 2h. Skapheandros (talk · contribs) The user uploaded derivative works, removed no-permission tags and blanked his/her talk page by IP, vandalized a user page, is possibly a sock of Oliver Castaño Mallorca (talk · contribs), Olivercastaño (talk · contribs). Also, looking at the file names, file contents, I have no good feeling but this is no reason for a block. -- RE rillke questions? 20:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Some sort of "artistic photographs" provider that tries to add tens of unrelated or non existing categories to promote his artwork. I warned him and each time I trap him of adding yet another unrelated category (some images get tens of useless edits), I delete the picture. --Foroa (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please create with this data:

[[Category:Allentown, Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Museums in Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:Automobile museums in the United States]]

[[en:America On Wheels]]

Thank you. Kobac (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Why did you do it yourself? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The category has been protected for creation or it was a software error. Kobac (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, likely a software error. There was no protection. Anyway, it is done now. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"X on wheels" is on the title blacklist, which is probably what prevented the page creation. Jafeluv (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? For which reasons? Category:America On Wheels seems to be a valid category. --High Contrast (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels is a long-term vandal and that line prevents people to create accounts with that combination of words. Trijnstel_talk 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. So, it is restriction does make sense.Kobac, it has been straightened out. --High Contrast (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello admins - please semi-protect the following logos images for Wikimania 2013, either indefinitely or until Wikimania 2013 itself (11 August 2013). They have been subject multiple times to vexacious tagging by IP users from Italy, which has previously resulted in their incorrect deletion and subsequently hundreds of Wikimania-related pages on Meta, Wikimania wikis and several Wikipedias being broken. The two images concerned are:

• File:Wikimania-2013-HK-Bid logo small.jpg
• File:Wikimania-2013-HK-Bid banner.png

Thanks. Deryck Chan (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done indef semi-protected pages. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Deryck Chan (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello admins. I wanted to inform you that a user continues to load a file version that is clearly overexposed! The face is disproportionately white and the whole image loses definition. I tried to warn the user not to overwrite the image, but the user continues to load the image edited, despite warnings. Thanks a lot and best regards. --Angelus^(talk) 15:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I need help with this user. In April I sent her uploads (pictures of an alive artist) to a DR because all says own work, but clearly appears in the artist's website. One of the pictures was deleted, but she uploaded it again today. Also, she removed tags from most all pictures, adding a flickr web, but is not valid. I warned about this and risk of been considered savotage if continues, but she did it again. Minium one picture was deleted and restore short after. The DR is still open because an admin is waiting an answer from painter. User:Alhen says he explain in en:WP this was not right, but she insist in delete DR tags from files. I'm thinking some kind of action is need in this case, and quick. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection should be downgraded to semi because autoconfirmed users are trusted to edit Template:Delete/en, and I believe we are responsible enough to make useful edits to Template:Speedydelete/en. -- SLV100 (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

O.k., tentatively change to semi-protection. --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Swizzbeatz97 (talk · contribs)

Could somebody block this user for uploading copyvio material after warnings?

Best, Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 12:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bdnr (talk · contribs)

Can a administrator please nuke his recent uploads and block him for uploading copyvios.

Best, Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 13:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, blocked 1 week. - A.Savin 14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please block Alexsanderxm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. After the warnings he simply removes the copyvio tags on the files, while trying to hide the messages on his talk page. --viniciusmc (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This request was archived without an answer, can someone please verify it since the user continues to upload copyright violations? --viniciusmc (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fteros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded another copyvio today after receiving a warning yesterday. January (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 1 day. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been edits and reverts by the same IP address. What protection shall it be? --George Ho (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Paraguayo1912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - please block, user is continuing to upload copyvios after a warning. January (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is continuing, user uploaded two more a few hours ago. January (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User properly warned with {{End of copyvios}}. Next he is getting a block. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but they have already had an {{End of copyvios}} warning and continued after receiving it [43]. January (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, I should have wait to drink my coffee before answering :-) I've blocked him for 3 days, I hope he will see and understand the message. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)