Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 8

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

Please block SlayerBoi1992 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
SlayerBoiProductions (talk · contribs) was - based on behavioural evidences - a previous account adding own watermarks on others works. I think this is some Twilight fan. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I request if possible an indefinite protection level to autoconfirmed users to my user and talk page. I never had vandalisisms, it's only to avoid eventual ones in the future (i've patroller permissions). Thanks a lot and sorry for disturb. --Dэя-Бøяg 23:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your user page and protected both the user and user talk pages against moves by anyone but administrators. I don't agree with semi-protecting the talk page against editing as that prevents new users from communicating with you. – Adrignola talk 23:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, no problem... cause it's right what you said. Thanks for page protection :-). --Dэя-Бøяg 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Side.jpg

Please protect as a very generic filename. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Rehman 02:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect coat of arms of Senegal please. Fry1989 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be involved in the file's history that led to the protection in the first place. What has changed that would allow us to expect that the edit war would not resume? – Adrignola talk 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The file needs updating, and the edit war was due to the creator being inflexible towards improvement and suggestion. However, creators who put files on here do not hold a monopoly on them, and if a file can be improved, every other user here has the right to do that, and it's done on a daily basis. There is no reason why I, or anybody else, should be blocked from being able to bring these arms closer to reality and improvement, simply because of the stubbornness of one person. Fry1989 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The admin who protected the file did so indefinitely. In line with your arguments, the protection policy states that protection to combat edit wars should only be temporary. Therefore it has been removed. If you encounter resistance let us know here rather than reverting. – Adrignola talk 14:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank You. Fry1989 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nairdeepajayan

Nairdeepajayan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) multiple copyvio uploads, continues after multilple warnings. Benchill (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, for 2 weeks. Rehman 15:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Promotional username. MacMedtalkstalk 17:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Commons:Username policy is not policy. – Adrignola talk 17:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. Apologies for the inconvenience. MacMedtalkstalk 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Kolyarudoj (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. They uploaded 21 copyright violations uploaded before the block and 16 copyright violations uploaded after the block. They've attempted to gain license reviewer status while repeatedly blanking warnings and attempts at discussion from their user talk page without responding, so while they are obviously capable of communicating, they're clearly refusing to do so or to learn from their mistakes. LX (talk, contribs) 09:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of picture which is not copyrighted anymore

The book cover of Magical maya (has been wrongly removed by "CommonsDelinker" or Trycatch citing copyright. However, copyright protection of this picture has long expired. Please reconsider.

(cur | prev) 03:48, 10 June 2011 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (2,592 bytes) (Removing "146200878X.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Trycatch because: Copyright violation: book cover.) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantm (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

According to en:Nick Cherukuri the book was published in 2011, so the copyright on its cover surely hasn't expired yet. Jafeluv (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That book was clearly not published more than 70 years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi-risk Wikimedia logos

Please upload protect File:Wikimedia-logo.svg, File:MediaWiki.svg, File:Incubator-text.svg, File:Incubator-notext.svg, File:Wikibooks-logo.svg, File:Wikinews-logo.svg, File:Wikispecies-logo.svg, and File:Wikimania.svg. Thanks! --Kungfu2187 (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Five were already protected; I've semi-protected the rest of them. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Rfahel (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another CriciumaSC sockpuppet. LX (talk, contribs) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wakey-wakey, please. They keep uploading copyvios. LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 days. axpdeHello! 20:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Since it's a sockpuppet, it should be blocked indefinitely. If you're not convinced it's a sockpuppet, I'd be happy to explain how you can tell. LX (talk, contribs) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear-cut. I've changed the block to indefinite. Jafeluv (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nkabouris (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log, for continuing to upload blatant copyvios after warnings.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 7 days. axpdeHello! 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block El kraneo (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 15:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. axpdeHello! 20:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Realrick7 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 19:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. axpdeHello! 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Ozkithar Salas (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) 23:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a month Ezarateesteban 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Durgasunuwar1 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 10:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Richards88 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. Better to also keep an eye on his newest sockpuppet Hammurabi1990 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Balbon23 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, two weeks. Rehman 09:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Lp Superfan (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, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done one week      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Ghostface00 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. There are also some deletion requests to attend to, which should simply have been tagged for speedy deletion as blatant copyright violations. LX (talk, contribs) 00:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for a week and uploads deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! LX (talk, contribs) 08:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block พะแนงเนื้อ (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations and recreate previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 08:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done one week --High Contrast (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Salyale (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-month block.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 year. Lymantria (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block DodoGremista (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log in infinite, yet another sockpuppet of Dodoimortal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log uploading the usual copyvio of Juju Salimeni.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Sinumerik (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Jafeluv (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Request from other user

I received on my own talk page a strange request from an other user (User:YacineDZ1), that was having troubles with copyrights.

Since I'm not concerned by such a request, I'm copying here the request (it's in bad French) :

Ok je vous empri de supprimer ces liens d'images j'ai faux l'uploader et merci

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elano_Adilson.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Park_de_Mostaganem_%28Arsa%29.jpg?uselang=fr

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Couch%C3%A9_de_soleil.jpg?uselang=fr

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rempoint_de_Mostaganem.JPG

Est-que tu peux me lever le bloque sur mon premier compte . ils ont mis un bloque indéfini a cause des images faux ? YacineDZ Svp répondez moi et merci --YacineDZ1 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick translation would be :

Ok I ask you gently to delete the images I've wrongly uploaded and thanks :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elano_Adilson.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Park_de_Mostaganem_%28Arsa%29.jpg?uselang=fr

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Couch%C3%A9_de_soleil.jpg?uselang=fr

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rempoint_de_Mostaganem.JPG

Could you also lift the block on my first account. They put an infinite block because of wrong image (I suspect he meant copyright violation)? user:YacineDZ Please, answer me and thanks --user:YacineDZ1 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it's not up to me to take action, or manage the request, I prefer to move this request here, so that sysop could manage it. Thanks in advance. Loreleil (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Open proxy spam

Please block 74.125.75.17 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). It's in the same range as 74.125.66.81 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), which is listed on Commons:Open proxy detection (and also needs to be blocked), it makes the same kind of test edits[1][2] and posts spam. LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I want you to unprotect the images "Bandera" and "Escudo" in the page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpica_de_Tajo in order to put the correct ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.161.161 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The filenames File:Flag of None.svg and File:Coats of arms of None.svg are protected because you should not upload flags and coats of arms of any specific entity under those names. Those files are strictly used as placeholders. If you have a flag and coat of arms available under a legitimate free license, upload them under more suitable names and edit the article to point to those instead. You will need to have an account and be logged in to upload files. LX (talk, contribs) 19:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Симилак

Симилак (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Uploading files with questionable licenses (all deleted or in the process of removal). Warned. Continues this work (File:Smurf day.jpg, File:Smurf people.jpg). --Art-top (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, 1 week, copyvios deleted.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This widely used file, which was protected years ago, was brough to deletion yesterday: Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Armoiries république française.svg (see also the preceding Commons:Village_pump#File:Armoiries_république_française.svg).

Please tag the image with delete notice to alert all projects that use it. NVO (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I closed the DR as kept because it was defective -- no notice on the image and no notice to ZScout, both of which must be in place for seven days before routine closure. It can, of course, be restarted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
They actually created both Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Armoiries république française.svg (nominally related to the talk page, which was listed and closed) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armoiries république française.svg (for the file page, which was neither listed nor closed). Somebody should probably do something about that too... LX (talk, contribs) 12:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The file was protected, so it could not be marked for deletion (and that's why I came here). Suggestion' If protection equals "can't nominate for deletion", then perhaps "nominate for deletion" should be disabled? NVO (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Better yet, the script should make an {{Editprotected}} request on the talk page if protection is detected. LX (talk, contribs) 12:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for my confusion over this badly malformed DR -- the DR log calls out File:Armoiries_république_française.svg and DelReqHandler didn't show me that the DR to which the log linked was the talk page, rather than file page. I've closed both, now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hamri00 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is a sockpuppet of Ghostface00 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who was recently blocked for one week for uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. With the new account, they have escalated to license laundering (see Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images#bighead31). Please block Hamri00 indefinitely and delete their copyvios, and please reset and/or extend Ghostface00's block for circumventing the original block. LX (talk, contribs) 08:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, one upload kept since it is a genuine image. Bidgee (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Block request for Sofiahayatfanclub - causing disruption at English Wikipedia trying to get their original (non-free) image into the article 'Sofia Hayat'. They've stated once that they own the rights of the photograph (hence why I tagged it as npd) but based on the fact that they haven't listened to the advice I've given them, haven't provided proof, and their username, I'd say they don't own the rights to the photo. They've also uploaded another image this evening which they have since tried to introduce to articles at English Wikipedia. Requesting a block to prevent them uploading further images. Mato (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not so hasty. We've received an email to OTRS from an email at the domain specified for File:Sofia Hayat Actor.jpg in ticket 2011062210007581 but license terms need to be clarified. – Adrignola talk 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I was under the impression no email had been sent. Thanks for the update. Mato (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

High risk image across multiple projects. Should be semi-protected so that I can still keep it updated. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be in use in only 6 wikis, or am I missing something? -- Darwin Ahoy! 04:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done My initial reaction was the same as DarwIn', but en:Google is the 25th most frequently accessed article on enwiki, 70k views per day.[3] I think that qualifies as high traffic. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please block Hora282 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for uploading multiple copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and repeatedly recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for one week.   ■ MMXX  talk  16:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Diermi - copyvios

Please block Diermi (talk · contribs) for three/six months or so (not sure about the usual escalation in such cases here; infinite?). He already was blocked for one week starting 2010-10-27 due to repeated copyvioing and flickrwashing. He continues uploading copyvios and did not comment anything. The only upload he has is a flickr pic - which probably only had a valid license by chance/accident. Thanks --Saibo (Δ) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for three months as requested. odder (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove all my photos!

I, the author of this photos, want my photos deleted from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valternet (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27. Jun. 2011 (UTC)

All these fine images were released under a free license or even into the public domain by yourself 4 years ago. Why do you want to revoke this donation to mankind now? --Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, pictures released with a free license can't be revoked! axpdeHello! 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Valternet -- he has been posting many DRs and uploading small images over large -- he's on a 36 hour block now, with an indef pending if he acts badly again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as there are no legal issues noone is allowed to "revoke" pictures released with a free license as CC or GFDL. That's a fact and undisputable! a×pdeHello! 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to request a block for 5 days (thats untill the discussion is ended) for Jcb.

Jcb is currently involved in editwars so he can remove comments that he doesn't like. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29&oldid=56073344 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29&oldid=56073275 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29&oldid=56072693 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29&oldid=56072658 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29&oldid=56072658 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor_%28de-adminship%29&oldid=56072604

The user blocked the IP indef (against all policies) (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Jcb) and closed down the range.

I believe this editwar is enough for a small block, the miss-use of the administration tools needs to be futher discussed, but this is no way for administrator to behave. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 20:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

While I confess I don't much like Jcb, I think you really need to calm down Huib. This little war between the two of you is getting tedious. Leave your computer, go outside, read a book, bed a beautiful maiden, DO ANYTHING BUT POSTING ON COMMONS. You need a break. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Trolling open proxy IP. The whole range should be blocked. As I told you guys on irc: "ok kids, play nice or you're both going to bed early". Both blocked for 8 hours. Good night. Multichill (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  • User requested rights removal on meta, and indef block via irc. Both are done. I think we can close this now. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The above comment relates to Abigor, of course. Jcb has been already unblocked by myself, as it was Abigor who made him edit-warring by using two open proxies to edit the above page and mislead the community. ✓ Case closed. odder (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Block Belaunde

Belaunde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uploads files with questionable licenses or no source at all (several already deleted or in the process to be). Warned, but keeps working, Andreasm just talk to me 22:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, 1 week, all uploaded files deleted.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello, Undefinitely blocked. Probably a sockpuppet of Лука Мудищев. Do we need a checkuser? Yann (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also МеДвЕд (talk · contribs). Jafeluv (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is a widely used template, perhaps we can semi-protect is similar to other templates from the Category:Problem tags? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

UnBlock request

Hi,

Can somebody please unblock user:AbiBot, since its a bot it cant be a sock.. Socks and Bots are different things. And can somebody please unblock user:P.J.L Laurens, this account is use to attribute my images. It would be a bad thing when people look at the contribs and see that its blocked.

BTW I know I didn't use my bot much lately, but now I'm not a admin anymore I'm happy to use it again :-)

Yours sincerly, Huib talk Abigor @ meta 21:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done now, let's first see what happens at meta. Wait at least two weeks before going back here. Multichill (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Wait two weeks and get more of my reputation destroyed? I can fire up my bot under my own account also and change all the user:P.J.L Lauerens changed in Abigor... Just want to use the real bot so I don't trigger lots of watchlists. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 21:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Will it hurt anything to wait a week or two until the matter is resolved on meta? I think not. Tiptoety talk 01:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Block Bustamante

Resolved

Bustamante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a sock puppet of the blocked user Belaunde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who keeps uploading files with questionable licenses (same images uploaded). Andreasm just talk to me 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser says they are pretty much Confirmed. As such I have blocked both. Tiptoety talk 05:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Would someone redirect this to Commons:Village pump per the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#Village_Pump_.2F_Proposals. --  Docu  at 21:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I see no support for such a move in the discussion. Additionally you were involved in the discussion and I believe this would be pushing your point of view. I'd also like to kindly ask you to refrain from edit warring and changing the page into a redirect against Rd232's wishes. You are free to ignore the page. – Adrignola talk 02:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime there is an interesting discussion on VP about this. It's at Commons:Village_pump#Moving_forward. Rd232 basically concedes that he ignored all feedback. --  Docu  at 06:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block BigShow (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) 01:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for one month.   ■ MMXX  talk  01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block Marcos Eugênio (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) 21:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Thanks!!! --Ezarateesteban 00:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

``អូសទូកកុំឲ្យលំអាន``ចាប់ត្រីបានកុំឲ្យល្អក់ទឹក``

សេចក្កីផ្តើម

វដ្តទុក្ខ គឺទុក្ខទោសទាំងឡាយដែលវិលវល់ចុះឡើងប៉ះពាល់រាល់រូបឥតស្រាកស្រាន្ត។

ដូចច្នេះបណ្តាលអ្នកប្រាជ្ញគ្រប់សាសន៏បានចងក្រងជាបញ្ហា ជាភាសិត ជាបទចរិយា

សាស្រ្តផ្សេងៗ ដើម្បីជាឧសថរំលត់ទោសនឹងជាយានដឹកនាំគាំពារបុផុជ្ជនក្នុងលោកឲ្យ

ចាកជៀសផុតពីអន្លង់ទុក្ខ នឹងឧបសក្គគ្រប់ជំពូកដែលកើតឡើងឥតទៀងទាត់។ ដូចយ៉ាង

ក្នុងច្បាប់ពាក្យចាស់លោកទូន្មានថា=

«អូសទូកកុំឲ្យលំអាន ចាប់ត្រីបានកុំឲ្យល្អក់ទឹក»

អត្ថានុរូប នឹងអត្ថបដិរូបរបស់ភាសិត

«អូសទូកកុំឲ្យលំអាន»


«អូសទូក»នេះគឺទាញទូកពីទីគោកទៅដាក់ទឹក«កុំឲ្យលំអាន»គឺកុំឲ្យមានស្នាមនៅលើដី

ឬមានស្នាមនៅបាតទូកព្រោះជាការនាំឲ្យសឹកដាច់បាតទូកឬអន្តរាធ្លុះធ្លាយទូកក៏មាន។

អ្នកប្រាជ្ញចង់ទូន្មានថា=កាលបើអូសទូកគឺប្រកបការអ្វីមួយយ៉ាងពិបាកដោយមានឧបសក្គ

ជាច្រើននៅរាំងរានេះត្រូវប្រយត្ន័«អូសទូកកុំឲ្យលំអាន»គឺធ្វើការនោះទៅកុំឲ្យមានស្នាមពោល

គឺកុំឲ្យមានសៅហ្មងមានរឿងរ៉ាវអ្វីផ្សេងៗដែលអាចឲ្យទុក្ខទោសដល់ខ្លួននៅវេលា

ប្រតិបត្តិការនោះ។

«ចាប់ត្រីបានកុំឲ្យល្អក់ទឹក»

គឺធ្វើម្តេចឲ្យបានត្រីហើយទឹកនៅថ្លាដូចដើម

អ្នកប្រាជ្ញចង់ទូន្មានថាបើយើងប្រាថ្នានឹង«ចាប់ត្រី»គេនឹងធ្វើអ្វីឲ្យបានលាភមានផលដល់យើងនោះ

បើបានលាភត្រូវប្រយត្ន័កុំឲ្យមាន«ល្អក់ទឹក»គឺកុំឲ្យមានការសៅហ្មងដិតដល់ខ្លួនកុំឲ្យមានទុក្ខទោស

ដល់ខ្លួនក្នុងគ្រាក្រោយឡើយ។

ឧទាហរណ៏=

ការដែលឃោសនាខាងបោះឆ្នោតរើសតំណាងរាស្រ្តជាការមួយធ្វើដោយពិបាកព្រោះមានឧបសក្គ

ជាច្រើនមករាំរា។នោះក្នុងការដែលយើងថាពិបាកនេះបេក្ខជនដែលនិយាយឃោសនាឲ្យរាស្រ្តបោះ

ឆ្នោតជ្រើសខ្លួនជាតំណាងត្រូវខំឆ្លងឲ្យផុតពីការលំបាកដោយឥតមានសេចក្កីសៅហ្មងដិតដល់ខ្លួន

គឺប្រយត្ន័ខំទាញខ្លួនឲ្យចាកផុតនូវគំររឧបសក្គផ្សេងៗ។ដោយគ្នារឿងរ៉ាវអ្វីនឹងឲ្យទុក្ខទោសដល់ខ្លួន

ក្នុងវេលាប្រតិបត្តិការនោះ។

បេក្ខជនដែលដែលខំធ្វើឃោសនាយ៉ាងនេះគឺដើម្បីនឹងឲ្យបានសំរេចបំណងមួយឲ្យបានជាប់ឈ្មោះ

ជាតំណាងរាស្រ្តប៉ុន្តែបេក្ខជននេះមិនត្រូវភ្លេចថា«បើចាប់ត្រីបានកុំឲ្យល្អក់ទឹក»គឺបើនឹងជាប់ឈ្មោះ

ជាតំណាងរាស្រ្តគឺជាប់ដោយត្រឹមត្រូវដោយប្រព្រឹត្តិល្អស្អាតកុំឲ្យមានរឿងរ៉ាងផ្សេងៗដែលត្រឡប់

ជានាំខ្លួន«ឲ្យល្អក់»គឺឲ្យទទួលកុំហុសអ្វីមួយមកវិញបាន។

ម៉្យាងទៀតឋអ្នកជំនួញនូវអ្នករាជការគ្រប់ជាន់ថ្នាក់ក៏ត្រូវខំបំពេញកិច្ចការរបស់ខ្លួនរឿងៗខ្លួន

ដោយជៀសវាងកុំឲ្យមានការសៅហ្មងដឹតដល់ខ្លួនបាន។ដែលនឹងបានផលទៀតក៏កុំឲ្យល្អក់

គឺបានដោយសុខមិននាំឲ្យរំខានចិត្ត។

សេចក្កីបញ្ចប់=កិច្ចការសព្វសារពើដែលយើងបំរុងនឹងធ្វើឬដែលបានចាប់ធ្វើទៅហើយក៏ដោយ

តោងខំអូសខំទាញខំប្រយុទ្ធឲ្យដល់ត្រើយដោយប្រុងប្រយត្ន័ជាដរាបកុំឲ្យការនោះហុចទុក្ខ

ទោសមកដល់ខ្លួនវិញ៕

រៀបរាងឡើងវិញដោយ«កែមសំអាង»មហាវីត្យាល័យបាក់ទូក

Fascinating post. Reminds me of a Whitespace program. --Slaunger (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Seem to be Cambodian. Anyone's able to decipher that? --Ben.MQ (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Entering it to google brings km:User_talk:An. --Martin H. (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. This is a literature analysis of a short proverb... so irrelevant here ... -Ben.MQ (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Protecting images used on enwiki

I had not noticed this sub-board before - can someone please protect File:Greatham Church (Edited).jpg and File:Liliuokalani.jpg for 24 hrs as they will be used on the enwiki mainpage soon? Thanks in advance. Casliber (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Protected for 1 day.   ■ MMXX  talk  03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Can be undone now :) Cheers, Casliber (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Block Fernando murillo

Fernando murillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be another sock puppet of blocked users Bustamante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Belaunde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who keeps uploading files about the same Peruvian politicians with questionable licenses (no source or permission). Andreasm just talk to me 17:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a block is justified at this stage, this was almost his first action here in Commons. I warned him and deleted the whole bunch of copyvios, please report here if that behaviour repeats.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
If he is a sockpuppet of those two, he should be indefinitely blocked, tough.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Counter-productive upload warring. Francisco (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Francisco. I've put it into the original state and protected it for a month. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look like an edit war, but more like a lot of users were puzzled by the server bug that does not allow reuploaded images from refreshing. I tried to delete and restore, move to a new name and move back, to no avail, so the file is now located at File:Political Regions of Sudan - July 2006.svg. Moving to a new name seems to be the only way to bypass this bug.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
A map that shows the situation of July 2006 not needs any updates. Therefore I have no idea what people do there or at now outsourced log [4]. --Martin H. (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
One guy uploaded a version without South Sudan, then the rest tried to revert it back, but due to the bug it never went away.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
See now, Special:Undelete/File:Political_Regions_of_Sudan,_July_2006.svg#File_history is more clearly arranged to understand the issue. Resolved then. --Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's not very Catholic, but moving the file resolves the issue. It may be moved back to the old name when the server problem is solved. Unfortunately there are cases were the new versions fail to be updated for weeks, and I believe this case was urgent enough to justify the move.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Darwin, for fixing this. I was puzzled, too, but had unfortunately not the time to resolve this. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Protect for 24h (enwiki mainpage)

Can someone please protect File:Mini Cooper blue.JPG as it will be mainpaged in next 24 h. Thanks in advance, Casliber (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, protected for 1 day.-- Darwin Ahoy! 07:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Block query

Please check this user, I've warned them with standard templates which also have French translation, first I blocked them for one day to stop their edits, today shortly after expiring the block they stared same out of scope edits again, so I blocked them again for one week, should we block them indefinitely? or should someone explain the policy to them in their language?   ■ MMXX  talk  10:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed a fluent fr warning/explanation would be good. Fully agree with the escalating blocks so far and would say that indef was appropriate if/when final warning is ignored personally. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Herby.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block Thales123 (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) 19:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done one week a×pdeHello! 21:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Please move Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category back to Commons:Categories/editnotice. This was moved without prior discussion by an administrator to implement a solution that seems to suit him. --  Docu  at 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Stuck on those editnotes at several places. Why are they now in template namespace?!? a×pdeHello! 16:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure, but I think the main idea is to move them out of MediaWiki namespace. I think the devs don't like too much editorial stuff in MediaWiki namespace.
Thus the link previously at MediaWiki:Editnotice-14 should now be at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category.
As the notices for categories are set, please keep them together at Commons:Categories/editnotice.
Moving Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category back to Commons:Categories/editnotice to will create the necessary link we used to have at MediaWiki:Editnotice-14. --  Docu  at 07:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A misleading description of the situation. Prior discussion did occur and can still occur at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Enable_Group_editnotices and I see that no mention was even given of Commons:Editnotice to explain what the solution actually was. – Adrignola talk 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of the pages you reference actually mention what you did. The change should be discussed first, then implemented. You can't insist on being an administrator to implement a solution that suits you. --  Docu  at 12:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC) (edited)

Please block Crazydamiano93 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for uploading well over 40 copyright violations in spite of receiving over 30 warnings, including warnings on their Polish Wikipedia user talk page. The previous two-week block did not produce any change in behaviour. LX (talk, contribs) 12:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for one month by Bidgee. LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block David Furty (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for uploading well over 20 copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings, including personal notes written in Portuguese posted both here and on their Portuguese Wikipedia user talk page. The two previous blocks (one week and one month, respectively) did not produce any change in behaviour. LX (talk, contribs) 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 6 months. Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please indef block this user as block evasion sockpuppet of User:Omen97, the block of the latter should be extended or indef'ed as well. --Denniss (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked and User:Omen97's block extended to a month. --Ben.MQ (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User Bo alice

Please consider blocking User:Bo alice. Continues to upload copyrighted material despite warnings. Warfieldian (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done 11:52, 18 July 2011 by Bencmq      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

User SalmonDDB

Please consider blocking User:SalmonDDB who continues to upload copyrighted images and images without permissions despite warnings. Warfieldian (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ blocked for a month --Ben.MQ (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ozankra has attempted to pass off photos from Flickr as his own work and been warned about it in the past. Today, he created a fraudulent Flickr review tag claiming an incorrect license for a photo File:Oussama Assaidi Heerenveen.jpg. Warfieldian (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Forging OTRS tags and Flickr review tags is not something I will tolerate. Blocked. – Adrignola talk 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This user has uploaded multiple copyrighted images despite warnings and has tried to forge Flickr review tags and now attempted flickr washing with copyrighted image. please consider blocking. Warfieldian (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by Herby for a week. mickit 13:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please protect this file against overwriting by uploading. (Reason: Highly used and target of vandalism) Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 15:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) +

-- RE rillke questions? 15:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done for all. – Adrignola talk 15:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone un-protect this file. It was 2009 on a main-page and is protected since then. Thanks Jahobr (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done mickit 18:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please immedeately block him. Trying a DoS attac. -- RE rillke questions? 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Vandalism only account, overwriting files, which gets particularly annoying with the current (or should I say ongoing) buggy state of things here, because it can't be properly reverted. LX (talk, contribs) 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Use "Perform batch task", worked fine for me. -- RE rillke questions? 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I still saw an older version of one of the files you reverted in the thumbnails view and thought that it was because of bugzilla:28613. As it turns out, it just needed a purge. LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
+ Please delete some revisions of File:Twitter logo.svg. -- RE rillke questions? 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Indef block, deleted vandalism, and protected widely used images targeted from non-admin uploads. – Adrignola talk 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

a new batch of temporary protections for DYK on enwiki mainpage....

Hi all, thanks for the protecting so far. Can someone please protect File:DYK Johnson tomahawk picture.jpg, File:Calvary Baptist Church, Ossining, NY.jpg, File:Castle bracciano.jpg, and File:Bouquet blockhouse.JPG please? Much appreciated, Casliber (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 23:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thanks! Casliber (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit log for File:Boilersuit2.jpg it seems obvious it needs some kind of protection. // Liftarn (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It was already ✓ done. I changed it to semi-protected for a week (from a month of sysop-only) because it was an isolated incident and the vandal has already been blocked. Blurpeace 16:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
There were three different users involved over a period of almost seven months, doesn't seem like an isolated incident to me. But ok, let's see if it is enough. --Rosenzweig δ 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about missing that; no idea how I did. If the protection needs to be extended I have no reservations whatsoever. Blurpeace 05:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked user SchoolcraftT is back

SchoolcraftT is socking at 74.46.172.222 to evade his block. See edit [5] for proof. Bitmapped (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

30 July-31 July talk

I think the bot should be blocked until the file-name issue is solved. See the "File:Combat memorable..." entry in Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting or compare this NARA upload (name cut after "Gene") with previously uploaded picture with full name. Look at this list of 50 uploaded files where most of the file names are cut. It is not realistic to correct all these file name errors afterwards one by one, tagging each picture with {{Rename}}. The upload software bug must be solved so that the files are uploaded with the full name, without cut. Cut names not only produce an impression of bad quality upon users, it also creates a lot of potential wrong keyword searches in search engines. Someone looking for a "gene" (a biological system) should not find the "Alphonse Juin, Commanding Gene" picture in his search results. Teofilo (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, you want it blocked? I can just turn it off, you know. I'm not exactly sure what the issue is, though. The titles get cut off when they reach the length limit. "The upload software bug must be solved so that the files are uploaded with the full name, without cut" is an impossible solution. This doesn't seem like a huge problem, certainly not one that's more important than getting the content on Commons. Most end users are going to be viewing the images on the projects, so the idea that these titles somehow negatively affect users because they are stylistically displeasing is a little baffling to me. Dominic (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh? How come there no polite enquiry from Teofilo on either Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives or User talk:Dominic? Oh wait... Jean-Fred (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I posted a fix a couple of days ago for the problem Teofilo mentions. Oddly it hasn't been applied yet. --  Docu  at 05:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for doing so. I was not aware that you had prepared a fix. Teofilo (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought that that was about the dates appended to the end of titles. I don't see where you mentioned the issue Teofilo is concerned about anywhere on the page. Dominic (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Who is(are) the person(s) in charge of the upload software ? According to en:Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Title_length, "Titles must be less than 256 bytes long when encoded in UTF-8.". Measured with http://bytesizematters.com/ , File:US Navy 050419-N-5313A-049 A U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier launches from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) during flight operations in the Mediterranean Sea.jpg is 202 bytes long and File:Combat memorable donne le 22, 7re 1779, entre le Captaine Pearson commandant le Serapis et Paul Jones commandant le Bonh - NARA - 532895.tif is only 145 bytes long. So it looks possible to add 256-145=111 more characters into NARA uploads' file names. The full title "Combat memorable donne le 22, 7re 1779, entre le Captaine Pearson commandant le Serapis et Paul Jones commandant le Bonhomme Richard et son escadre, 07/22/1779" being 159 characters long, it should be OK. With 249 characters, "Pvt. Jonathan Hoag,...of a chemical battalion, is awarded the Croix de Guerre by General Alphonse Juin, Commanding General of the F.E.C., for courage shown in treatingwounded, even though he, himself, was wounded. Pozzuoli area, Italy.", 03/21/1944" is perhaps only one or two characters longer than the 256 limit after adding "File:" and ".tif". Also it could be decided to cut whole words instead of cutting in the middle of the words, and to use (…) at the location where the cut is performed, like I did for this upload of mine. Perhaps it would be best to always keep the date at the end of the title, and to cut the words located before the date. Teofilo (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I am running a script that was written by Multichill; he's not in charge of the bot's actions, but I am not a programmer, so I can't easily make changes without him. I was not originally aware that the character limit was that high. I had thought that the limit was being imposed by the upload form, not by the bot's script, which is why I was saying it wasn't fixable. I see now that we can allow even longer titles, but I am not sure if we should. This should be discussed at Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives, as the names already seem rather long and unwieldy to me. Your suggestion to not have it cut off titles mid-word, though, is a good one, I agree. In any case, I don't think this is a dealbreaker. The full titles are all contained in the template's "title" parameter, so we wouldn't have to go back and rename anything manually anyway, since a bot can extend the names using that data. I think it is more important to get the files actually uploaded at this point. Dominic (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a deadline after which the files won't be available any longer ? File renaming is an activity which consumes a lot of resources and which is generally frown upon unless there is a good reason to do so. I am afraid the massive file renaming operation will be refused. When there is a problem in a car factory you stop the production line until the problem is solved. You don't sell the cars first and recall them a year later to change the defective part. The latter is more expensive. I think we need more opinions from people with bot software writing experience and help from people who would be willing to actually modify the script or write the file renaming bot's script. I am going to copy the present talk on Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives. Teofilo (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
For Jean-Frédéric, here is the Commons:National Archives and Records Administration/Error reporting link again, where the problem was debated between Dominic and me below the "File:Combat memorable..." entry. Teofilo (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This talk is moved to Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives#File name maximum length and file name cutting format. Teofilo (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like someone to unprotect this file. It was protected in 2010 after minor category vanadalism. However, this photo is no longer used as the main photo for the subject and likely doesn't need the protection. Aaaccc (talk), 31 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, I've lowered it to semi-protection and watchlisted it. Blurpeace 03:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Viniguimas (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) 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

UPickle

User:UPickle is a corporate name. User uploaded a company logo and used it to create a promotional article on en-Wiki (the user has been blocked there). Amatulic (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider blocking 82.198.250.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), see these edits. Mathonius (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

188.123.241.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps creating useless talk pages. Could this IP address be blocked to put an end to this? Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminding admins of the blocking policy

I want to remind admins of COM:Blocking policy. There are quite a few blocks on Commons that are not in accordance with the rules - arbitrary decisions. Particularly, I want to draw attention to the line in bold: "Blocked users can edit their own talk page". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK that text comes from a time when disabling talk page access was not possible. I have added a sentence to clarify when such access restrictions are warranted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It says at the top of that policy page: "Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy." That change is not minor. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
ChrisiPK's addition looks fine. I don't think it really constitutes a change to the policy. The statement "Blocked users can edit their own talk page" is not a rule that means users who are blocked have some absolute right to use their talk page. Even before the introduction of the ability to disable talk page editing for a blocked user, full protection would have been employed if users had abused their talk page whilst blocked. The policy doesn't say admins can't stop users editing their talk page, nor should it. I welcome ChrisiPK's addition to clarify that this should be limited to cases where the privilege has been abused however. Adambro (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 Support. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You also often do this. Without good reason, as far as I can see. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the honor, that it's not always the others who get "stalked" by you. Anyway, if that "Without good reason, as far as I can see." is your final evaluation, may be you should clean your glasses or really take a look in which cases I did indeed block talkpage access. Feel free to think that such quality contributors as [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] should get the chance to justify their "edits", of which some were even version-deleted, I, however, don't think they should get that chance. --Túrelio (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have long maintained that editing Commons is good preparation only for those preparing to live in a police state. It is interesting that few see anything wrong with the Gestapo tactics used by the Commons thought police. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
@Turelio: you supported ChrisiPK's addition: "talk page and email access should only be blocked, if the user is known for abusing those privileges." As far as I checked, the users that you had blocked had not abused their talk pages. And I do not know why you mention "stalking". At least two other admins used to block talk page access, without other admins intervening. I had notified them of policy. I had not noticed your blocks until your vote here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
lol @ Malcolm. Or was that meant to be a serious comment? Killiondude (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The condition on Commons could be described as fatal, but not serious. Perhaps resulting from administrative conclusion of the brain. (I have discussed the common Commons problem of administrators as intellectual midgets in the past, but few administrators laughed.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Didn't take too long for Godwin's law to be demonstrated I see. Adambro (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, bro Adambro. The phrase I used was Gestapo tactics: "used for referring to cruel actions by officials with complete power over people" [12]. I think that is an accurate description of the administrative actions that many Commons administrators take to be their prerogative as a member of the administrative class. I could have used other terms, such as 'Inquisitional tactics', but I doubt if you would have liked the alternatives any better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Aha a rare visit from the chief inquisitor - I will certainly avoid a threat that includes Schosha who is always abrasive and less than pleasant in my eyes. To PK - I'd prefer we seek sensible Commons admins who can deal with situations as they see appropriate and who are willing to discuss their actions with the community. Rules in so many areas are not a way to deal with issues. I'll not return to this thread so provocation will be ignored even if expected. --Herby talk thyme 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I always thought Herbythyme one of the best Commons administrators. Even if we seldom agreed, he usually at least tried to be fair (even if he made no such effort here.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see User talk:A.Savin#Do not block talk page access for an admin with supreme disregard for policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You might get a more useful response if you explain exactly why you are accusing people of ignoring policies. In this case, the policy you refer to could never seriously have been considered to prevent admins from taking action to stop blocked users abusing their talk page. As ChrisiPK has clarified though, such measures should only be used in limited circumstances. Unless you disagree with ChrisiPK and are suggesting blocked users should be able to continue to do whatever they like with their talk page, which would seem rather strange, the question you should be really asking A.Savin is why he decided to block talk page access in specific cases, as Herby has now done. Adambro (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Admin A.Savin ignored policy, and refused to listen to a lowly user like me. Only when an admin comes along, he changes behaviour. This is typical. Admin Masur acted in the same way. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
If you find your approach for raising concerns with admins is consistently ineffective, maybe it is your approach that is the problem. Adambro (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Or, perhaps, there is a problem with some members of the Commons administrative class. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting unblock in order to upload agreed-upon, non-contentious version of the file. The issue has been settled, all users agree that the label "Government of National Salvation" in the files, which caused the dispute, is inaccurate and should be changed to the more acceptable "Serbia (under German Military Administration)" (see the second and third post of this thread). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the location this should have been posted to first, but now it is simply a duplication of the main noticeboard thread. – Adrignola talk 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a second request. The discussion on the talkpage is over altogether now, and while this request is no more or less valid now as then (the discussion on the "Map issue" having been concluded a week ago), I've been led to believe you might feel more comfortable lifting the protection now. The only reason these files remain blocked is that noone seems to want to take the time understand that the matter is no longer disputed. Significant progress has been achieved there, with consensuses on the article's title, lead, and scope. The only remaining issue is the infobox, and it does not contain the disputed files. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Note that there is still problem with the fact that there are no valid sources for borders and political situation which is shown in map named "Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1943-44.png". Sources that are currently listed on that page were copy-pasted by DIREKTOR from my map that show political situation in 1941 and these sources are not showing political situation in 1943-1944. PANONIAN (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If the file is unprotected I will be glad to enter sources, such as Tomasevich, into the article. That's another reason to unprotect the file. The dispute was over the label for Serbia, and that's resolved. Unless you prefer this version, PANONIAN? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... is it at all possible to get the files unblocked? Or is it actually preferred to have Commons files indefinitely protected to no end? For heaven's sake folks, you can protect it again if it turns out I'm "lying" or something. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be unprotected by Jcb. One revert and I'll think about protection again. – Adrignola talk 17:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed. Thank you very much. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider blocking Brown eye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for continuously uploading non-free media, despite multiple requests to stop doing this. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The warnings are all dated 08/08 - today. Have they uploaded anything since those? --Herby talk thyme 10:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This user uploaded five more non-free pictures after the first warning. He stopped after this block request and a block might not be necessary anymore. Mathonius (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - they need blocking on any further copyvios. Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

More images for enwiki dyk mainpage

Hi, can someone please protect File:Carex.pilulifera.-.lindsey.jpg, File:Oscar Clayton Vanity Fair 12 September 1874.jpg, and File:Charles M Russell House - new location - Great Falls Montana - September 1976.jpg for 48 hours or so while they file thru the enwiki mainpage? Much appreciated, Casliber (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thx :) Casliber (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BotMultichillT please stop the bot

see also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:BotMultichillT_is_effectively_vandalising_articles , Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:BotMultichillT

All I'm asking is that someone stop the bot which is miscategorising at least 40% of the edits it makes. There are various ways to improve the categorisation activity which I would like to help with.212.50.170.52 14:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please keep it to one noticeboard. No protection or blocks are needed. Bidgee (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost all images uploaded by this new user are copyvios. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider blocking Antasova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for uploading non-free media (copyright violations) despite multiple warnings. He or she uploaded seven more copyvio's after the first warning. Mathonius (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, before I saw your entry here. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello,
Would it be possible to have a look at the problematic contributions of this user? He has been blocked three times for importing files under copyright or with a license that is not realistic. He still continues to do so despite explanations, which leads to time-consuming tracking of his interventions to mark these images. Regards Moumou82 (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

mainpage enwiki

Can someone please protect File:HMS Phoenix cropped.jpg and File:E59-HR.svg - due to go on enwikimainpage soon? Cheers, Casliber (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 21:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thanks :) Casliber (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mainpage enwiki again

Hi, can someone please protect File:Billy Waters Sir David Wilkie 1815.jpg and File:Thomas-S.-Pettit.jpg as they will be on the enwiki mainpage imminently? cheers, Casliber (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, protected for 1 day. Let me know if that's insufficient. Regards, Rehman 04:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Loan402 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings (about 50 copyright violations since January and counting). LX (talk, contribs) 08:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider blocking Nekoringo2932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for repeatedly uploading non-free media despite multiple warnings. He/she has been blocked for this behaviour for one week in June 2011 and today File:Official Promotional Single Cover Titanium (David Guetta & Sia).jpg was uploaded by him/her. After tagging it for speedy deletion and explaining this on his/her talk page, he/she removed the {{Copyvio}} template. Regards, Mathonius (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Block Murillo velasco

Murillo velasco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet confirmed by checkuser, who keeps uploading files about Peruvian politicians with questionable licenses. Andreasm just talk to me 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Gallegos peru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the 6th sockpuppet, Andreasm just talk to me 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Gallegos peru blocked for infinite. User:Murillo velasco is blocked for 3 days only. Pointed this thread to the relevant people too. --Dferg (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Murillo G (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be another sockpuppet. Andreasm just talk to me 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser-Request reopened. Awaiting result before blocking. --Dferg (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Josuel21 (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) 15:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just warned him. One more copyvio and this user gets blocked. Thank you for helping. --High Contrast (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Llengüa->Llengua

MediaWiki_talk:AnonymousI18N.js#Catalan (Requested also here per Commons:Protection_policy#Requesting_protection_and_unprotection). -Aleator (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

mainpage enwiki again again

Hi, can someone please protect File:Jan mazurkiewicz.jpg and File:Die Zwitscher-Maschine (Twittering Machine).jpg which are due to go on the mainpage enwiki as part of DYK in the next 48 hours or so? Thanks in advance. Casliber (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

TPJL20

Please consider blocking TPJL20 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) again for repeatedly uploading copyright violations. He or she has been blocked for this behaviour before. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - A.Savin 06:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Request Unprotection

This file name "File:Flag of Western Sahara.svg" currently redirects to "File:Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.svg", which isn't appropriate since: Western Sahara is a disputed territory claimed by two parties. WP shouldn't take the side of any over the other.

So per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote, this page should be unprotected and/or unredirected to the Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. I propose uploading a General map of the territory, that would be used instead. So WP doesn't take neither party's side in this conflict

Also, take this consensus/lack of consensus into account --Tachfin (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a redirect because the flag WAS moved due to your dispute. And the reason it's still a redirect is because a ton of pages still use it. We simply don't care about what Wikipedia has decided, but you remove all those links to the old file (Commonsdelinker is broken btw, so you'll have to do it manually) and I'll happily delete it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Loan402 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for the same reason as above – they continued in exactly the same manner immediately after the block expired. LX (talk, contribs) 11:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Not an infinite block, to avoid further complaints on my talk page by a particular individual, but long enough. – Adrignola talk 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Filipe Beckhauser (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) 00:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done A year ban. Lymantria (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

RodrigoLarsonOficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) -- no valid edits, insists on uploading improper files to publish on articles about himself on pt.wiki. --viniciusmc (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for 1 week. Trijnstel (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Heyhello1234567 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to resort to personal attacks after being warned about it. LX (talk, contribs) 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

3 days break. --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite blocking of Taxiarchos228

Taxiarchos was blocked indefinitely by mattbuck on the grounds, that he would threaten ChrisiPK with legal actions.[13] But he only said (in German, the English translation must be a language mistake (prüfen = to check, beweisen = to poof)), that he would consult a lawyer to let him check if the license migration was legal after German law. He means the first license migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA, to which the author (he has more rights after German law then in the US) never agreed with. The migration itself is probably illegal after German law, as long the author does not agree. This fact has already driven out many German contributers and made them angry.

Back to intial topic: He never threatened ChrisiPK. He said that he would consult a lawyer if the actions from the WMF are legal after German law. (This is a problem for German re-users if it isn't.) A question that any anybody can ask. There is no legal threat as long he makes no legal claims against the WMF or it's users. There is a huge gap between both options. Despite that Taxiarchos was blocked indefinitely. I request that the block will be removed, since none of the rules inside No legal threats apply in this case. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but from how most of us see it "Wenn Du bis in 24 Stunden deine Aktion nicht rückgängig machst werde ich rechtliche Schritte prüfen lassen."[14] (Google translation: If you up in 24 hours do not undo your action I will have consider legal action.) is a legal threat. Bidgee (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
But Taxiarchos already clarified that he did not meant it this way: "I did not said that the legal measures would be against ChrisiPK and proofing legal measures is a ordinary behavior if you have judicial friction." [15] -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
He notified me about this block and wrote: "Ich habe geschrieben, dass ich die Umlizenzierungen, die ich als URV werte (im übrigen auch mein Rechtsanwalt, mit dem ich seit Jahren in derartigen Fällen zusammenarbeite) rechtliche prüfen werde und nun wird mir das als direkte juristische Drohnung gegen einen Benutzer ausgelegt. Ich habe das nachweislich weder gesagt und dazu auch noch klargestellt. Ich bitte eine Sperrprüfung einzuleiten. Nochmal im Klartext: ich habe niemals gegen irgendeinen Benutzer mit Klage gedroht sondern lediglich gesagt, die Sache rechtlich prüfen zu wollen. Sollte das jemand missverstanden haben, bekräftige ich dies noch einmal. Danke und Grüsse Wlady"
This also indicates a simple misunderstanding. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This has actually nothing to do with the relicensing as this shows: [16];[17]. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This has actually nothing to do with the potential threat and is a separate issue. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 14:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course that's why he removed the GDFL license from 300 images because these were added by the evil wikimedia foundation. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This is also not related to the blocking. The reason for the block is a legal threat, that wasn't one in my opinion. (see citations at the beginning of this section). -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 15:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It actually is in contrast to your claim that it has something to do with the license migration. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You must be kidding me. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 15:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Here the facts: [18]; [19]; [20] --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
FAL can be added. The old license can't be removed. As for the license migration, the time to opt-out has passed and even if the uploader had, the GFDL would still need to be present, just no tag for the Creative Commons license. No comment on legal threats since I don't speak the language that applies. – Adrignola talk 17:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Full unnecessary + incompetent block. If Commons (and not en.WP, de.WP, sah.WP etc.pp.!) has no policy on legal threats whereas it presents itself as an independent project, then no one is to block due to a legal threat untill there is own policy on this issue. Besides, T228 seems to have accepted the fact that GFDL/CC templates were put into his files again. There were no conflicts last days on this topic. Therefore, the ban looks like a late punishment action rather than administrative intervention which should prevent damage on project. Anyway, even if T228 has to be punished for that comment, an infinite block is absolutely disproportional. - A.Savin 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, it seems strange to me that a) the same discussion is running on at least 3 places (here, ANB, User talk:Taxiarchos228) and b) the blocking admin still has not comment on the action. - A.Savin 20:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing strange about the distribution, IMO. The general discussion about the relicensing issue (concerns not only Taxiarchos22) is separate from the legal-threat issue, though both threads were started about around the same time. This thread here was opened by Niabot today. --Túrelio (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel my block was warranted by a legal threat - whether or not it was intended as one, it was taken as one by ChrisPK. If an unblock is to be considered, I feel it should come at the price of an apology to Chris, and preferably an acknowledgement that if people resort to lawyers then they should no longer be talking onwiki. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 Support. Only this instant (kudos to Saibo[21]) I became aware of an even more explicit legal threat by Taxiarchos228 against unspecified users, issued 2 days before the one against ChrisiPK. Roughly translated into english it says: "If any users prefer to get a cease-and-desist letter (en:Abmahnung), because they unlawfully change licenses that don't belong to them, they can get that." To be sure, Taxiarchos228 is free, as any other licensor, to take legal means to demand his rights, outside of Commons. But his habit of using legal threats against users on-wiki to enforce his opinion about a-posteriori changing licenses has to stop. --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You shall not cite only one sentence. At least you should be fair enough to cite/translate the whole paragraph to put it inside the right context. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 22:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Túrelio did link to the full quote in context. I read the sentence in context. There is nothing mitigating about the context, and Túrelio quoted the most relevant part. Unless you're objecting just to object, please explain what your actual point is. LX (talk, contribs) 07:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again: Is there a policy on commons concerning legal threats? I was formerly active on de-WP, so - for example - I know that there is no such policy (although there were some attempts to establish one, I personally even had supported it then), and, as a result, no one of established users were ever blocked infinitely for that reason, although legal threats are not rare on de.WP (Germans like it generally, to threat someone with a lawyer). So, why does commons assumes the right to block users, only by the fact that this policy exists on a certain WM project which actually has nothing to do with commons (I mean en.WP)? - A.Savin 05:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Legal threats can be considered as harassment and users issuing them are thereby possibly blockable through COM:BP. There was also some consensus in the past that we do not accept legal threats at Commons. And this rationale applies also to Commons and there is exists even a WMF statement about this. That surely does not mean that we indef anyone who publically considers to ask for legal advice but it should definitively come to the point that we protect those who possibly get intimitated through on-wiki threats, be it legal or otherwise. In general, I would, however, recommend to warn first and to block only if such threats happen to continue. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Legal threats can be considered as harassment -> OK, that is probably handled similarly in most projects including de.WP and commons. But the question is still, what does legitimate here an infinite ban without a respective policy on commons. And it is especially an interesting question if the user who was blocked infinitely is otherwise a productive contributor with a clean block log (OK, on commons, but commons is an independent project, isn't it?). Let us have an extreme example: If I call you here a "Nazischwein", it wpould surely be a very bad offense for which I would immediately get blocked by an admin. But, for which duration? Probably for 1 or 2 weeks, maybe for 1 month, but infinite? Especially if it is known that my block log was by now empty and I've been active here for five years and have uploaded over 3000 correctly licensed images? So, everyone has the right to make mistakes a couple of times, and there is no legitimate reason to adopt maximum punishment already at first delinquency. Therefore, I suggest to reduce T228's block to 2 weeks. - A.Savin 06:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
@A. Savin, not to mention the fact that indefinite is not equivalent to infinite, this block is not punitive (somewhat contrary to your example), but protective for the threatened admin, as Mattbuck's above statement "until such time as any legal issues have been solved" shows. IMO, the block could be lifted, if Taxiarchos228 apologizes to ChrisiPK and expressedly retracts his words that were clearly understood as a legal threat, even if he later claimed they weren't meant that way. Taxiarchos228 intimidatory comments towards ChrisiPK[22] and JuTa[[23] are totally inappropriate on a collaborative project. If Taxiarchos228 is not satisfied with what he was told about the underlying re-licensing issue by a number of experienced users, he should lobby to obtain a sound legal expertise, which surely would be welcomed by a number of users. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I proposed to add legal threats as grounds for indefinite blocking earlier this year. Despite being accepted practice (given sufficient time, I could dig up numerous references; and policy is supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive), there was no consensus to add it at the time. LX (talk, contribs) 07:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In his recent statement, Taxiarchos228 stated that he will seek legal advise but he will not take legal action against the users he had been in conflict with regarding the licensing issue. He also states that until he gets that legal advise, he will not continue to change any of his licenses. While this statement does not include an apology and some uneasiness is perhaps left, I think that this is sufficient ground to unblock him. The threats or whatever was perceived as threats are gone and this is the main point why he was blocked. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please unblock him. It is not that a couple of days ago he already claimed that he checked with his lawyer that he could freely relicense the files. And he also is of course not going to change the licenses again after his laywer tells him again that he can freely do that. Blocking him would at least make that a bit more difficult. The user has a lengthy block log on de. That he will cause trouble again is as predictable as death. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your unhelpful attacks on Taxiarchos228. What happened on de-wp is in no way related to this case and on-going references to his block log there which appear out of context, can be considered as harassment. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll take your word that that's what it says, google translate renders it pretty much unintelligible. I will unblock. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, mattbuck. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Camiga (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) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thank you for reporting this. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Kotokot82

Kotokot82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). User uploads files that violate copyrights. Warned. Continues this work (uploads the remote and exposed to delete files again with other names). --Art-top (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thank you for reporting this. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, please reblock User:UniQue_Hashmi for continuing to upload copyright violations after a previous block for the same reason expired. Camw (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ 1 month and uploads nuked. Thanks.--Ben.MQ (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider blocking Lantern right comforting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for being a vandalism-only account, clearly created solely to harass people (see this edit). 122.59.90.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (with this edit four minutes later) is probably the same person. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, IP not blocked (only 1 edit so far)--Ben.MQ (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In June 2011, Ozkithar Salas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for one month because he or she kept violating copyrights by uploading non-free media. Please consider blocking this user again for his or her recent uploads. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thank you for reporting this. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

enwiki mainpage protections

Hi all, can someone please protect File:Laurence Alma - Tadema.jpg and File:RMF Michael Herrmann 20110823.jpg which will appear on the enwiki mainpage today or tomorrow? Cheers, Casliber (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
much appreciated/thanks Casliber (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi - we've got some more (for protection for 36 hours or so) - File:Hotel Jerome, Aspen, CO.jpg, File:Bagambhrini Golden Dome Kalash.jpg and last but not least File:Cymodocea.JPG. Thanks in advance, Casliber (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 04:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
much appreciated/thanks again. Casliber (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

a third time...

Update - some more - File:Hugo Steinhaus.jpg, File:Zagreb Marathon Lisa Christina Stublić 20101010 2191 cropped.jpg and File:Tadeusz Szeligowski.jpg for protection please :) Casliber (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks muchly :) Casliber (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

a fourth time...

One more for protection - File:Tower Building, Liverpool - geograph.org.uk - 206578.jpg cheers, Casliber (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done  ■ MMXX  talk 21:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thanks again. Casliber (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

a fifth time...

File:Hacking River near Lady Carrington Drive.jpg, File:Elephant-siderography-LaBastille.jpg, File:Niagara Whirlpool.JPG and File:Gun-Hägglund-1958.jpg will all be on the en wiki mainpage in the next 36 hours or so...so we'd much appreciate the protection :) Cheers, Casliber (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, except for the non-existing one. --Túrelio (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
gah! must be only on en wiki. A good candidate for getting over here but will protect there myself as I am an admin there. Thanks! Casliber (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

a sixth time...

File:Alexander Binder - Bruno Kastner Photochemie K 3133.jpg and File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portret van het hoofd van de Arabieren te Tegal Java TMnr 10005286.jpg - should be in next 24 hours. Thanks in advance :) Casliber (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
much appreciated. Casliber (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection requests

File:Newspaper nicu buculei 01.svg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Over 10,000 transclutions only in en.wiki.
File:Filmaward (color background).png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Over 3,500 translutions in en.wiki. Tbhotch (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Another that I forgot was File:Knewsticker.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), that is extremely high-visible. Tbhotch (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done by A.Savin  ■ MMXX  talk 10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please protect some images for upcoming use on EN main page

The following images are in a queue for use in DYK on EN's main page within the next 48 hours or so, and therefore need temporary protection: File:Gallenröhrling-1.jpg, File:HeinieMeineGoudeycard.jpg, File:Gedenktafel Ebertstr ggü 25 (Tierg) Maueropfer dyk.jpg, File:Urmuz - Foto01.jpg. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

two more images for DYK in next 48 hours or so...

File:Shri Cintamani of Theur.jpg and File:Oceanário de Lisboa (10) - Mar 2010.jpg. thanks in advance. cheers, Casliber (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done  ■ MMXX  talk
thanks :) Casliber (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

three more images for DYK in next 48 hours or so...

File:Siddhivinayak siddhatek.jpg, File:State Insurance Building - geograph.org.uk - 1021172.jpg and File:DummyTaylorLOC.jpg are the next three that will be on the main page. Much appreciated if someone can protect. Cheers, Casliber (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 03:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Promotional username

Promotional username User:University-campus-dot-com, please block--Motopark (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Deleted the user page as promotional content that is out of scope. No block applied. I'd advise you to note that Commons:Username policy is not policy and I'd appreciate it if people would stop calling for blocks based on it. – Adrignola talk 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for info.--Motopark (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Joaobr1996 (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) 00:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Jafeluv (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

XARDDD

XARDDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). User uploads files that violate copyrights. Warned. Continues this work (last uploaded file File:Прогресс М-12М.jpg taken from official site of RKK Energiya). --Art-top (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ 3 days--Ben.MQ (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please semiprotect Template:Normdaten

Hi! Please semiprotect Template:Normdaten. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by לערי ריינהארט (talk • contribs)

✓ Done - A.Savin 14:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 07:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

MulletRecords

MulletRecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Corporate username. Uploaded company logo file to Commons for use in a blatant promotional article en-Wikipedia. Commons userpage is also an advertisement. This user is indef blocked on en-Wikipedia for username policy violation and spamming. Amatulic (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User page is already deleted. No other edits. Adrignola pointed out a few sections above that COM:Username policy is not a official policy. Block seems not necessary unless they advertise further. --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This user is randomly linkspamming even as I write this. I'm undoing his edits, but I'm not an admin here, so I can't stop him. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by User:A.Savin --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Some strange messages in the user creation log

I had a look at the user creation log and stumbled about Eminformacion created new account User:Emi24wiki. What's this ? Was the user logged-in and created another account or was it from an IP the first user was logged-in shortly before ? --Denniss (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A logged in user can create another account at Special:CreateAccount :) --Ben.MQ (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I use it to keep an connection, see my log. Multichill (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please block Kara Gose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. --69.234.133.252 07:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Left a final warning. Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please block Flatron (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload blatant copyright violations with false authorship claims (more than 40 since 2008) in spite of multiple warnings and four(!) previous blocks. Flatron02 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) should also be blocked to prevent circumvention of the block. LX (talk, contribs) 08:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Both blocked for 6 months. Yann (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please block Tzo15 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations (specifically: transferring non-free fair use content from English Wikipedia, changing the license to {{Copyrighted free use}} and faking file description pages to look like the transfers were performed using CommonsHelper – which would of course not allow transfers of such files) in spite of multiple warnings and multiple previous blocks. The user has been specifically warned several times about transferring content marked as non-free. LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I'd support a block with a duration of 2 weeks to 1 month. --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Added [24] blocked infinite --Ezarateesteban 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record: that edit was used to justify the previous two-week block as well, and as far as I can see, they haven't made any personal attacks since. An indefinite (not infinite!) block based on the copyright violations until they recognise the errors of their ways might still be in order, though. LX (talk, contribs) 20:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please protect still more images for upcoming use on EN main page

Hi, File:Olle Björklund 1960.jpg, File:JRHU - Students Hall of Residence.jpg and File:Sphaerechinus granularis (Lamarck, 1816) 1 .jpg will be on enwiki mainpage in next 36 hours or so, protection for that period much appreciated in advance. cheers, Casliber (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please semi-protect (edit = autoconfirmed; move = autoconfirmed) this template since it is in use on the high-traffic VPP-page and was target of vandalism. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 20:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, by A.Savin. --Túrelio (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider blocking Ogrouhgrjo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for spamming. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

He/she keeps removing the {{Speedy}} tag from the page Hunter Mariner... Please delete that page. Mathonius (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Update: Ogrouhgrjo has been globally locked and he now continues with the account Hondalover2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). You may wish to block that one. ;) Mathonius (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. Infinite block due sock puppeting. Béria Lima msg 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider blocking Mromarfootballfan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) again for repeatedly uploading non-free images. Yesterday, he or she has also been blocked for this behaviour. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please delete his or her uploads as well. Mathonius (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done — Tanvir | Talk ] 04:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A strange thing has happen:

I have never seen application of Category protection to prevent discussion. It seems to me like abuse of power, however I do not deal with protected pages that much so brought this to attention of this forum. --Jarekt (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a CU can have a look at RighterCopy (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log ) which self-admits being a sockpuppet that has been vandalizing commons. See also here as well. Best, --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 12:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they are also just editing while logged out (the IP is blocked). CheckUser does not show any other accounts. Tiptoety talk 06:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a load of other accounts been used but they use dynamic IPs for what it's worth. --Herby talk thyme 07:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Routine protection request

Please protect File:256 Purple Heron.jpg for 3 days because it will appear on the en.wiki main page. We normally upload a copy locally, but this is a huge file and resizing it would spoil the presentation (the text around hinges on the high resolution of the image) . Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Killiondude (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please block Crxzado caballero (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 12:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! This file only attracts vandalism and was semi-protected for that reason previously for six months. Could that protection be renewed? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for 6 months by Bencmq. Trijnstel (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please protect some images for upcoming use on EN main page

Please provide ~48 hours' protection for the following images that are queued to go on the main page of English Wikipedia in the Did you know feature: File:The Coventry Cross.jpg, File:Eucalyptus oreades Bandabanda.jpg, File:Philadelphia ACF-Brill trolleybus 215 on route 79 in 1978, cropped.jpg, File:HLWhite.jpg. Thank you! --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please semi-protect GNOME Desktop icons 2.20 (histlogsabuse log) this page. It was too often target of vandalism. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please find out whether this is a static IP or not and then use an appropriate time-frame for the block-duration. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably static, but I see no edits after your 'last warning'??? Jcb (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It was foreseeable that the user would continue making nonsense edits since he/she/it ignored all the previous warnings. -- RE rillke questions? 21:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually I do see them... The first last warning was on 21:22 and the last edit on 21:43 (one minute ago). Trijnstel (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he started editing again at the moment I posted my comment. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done, blocked for 1 day. See also here. Trijnstel (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 21:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This user has been warned on 4 September 2011 for repeatedly uploading non-free media. Today, he or she continued this behaviour by uploading several images associated with and/or from the video game "Assassin’s Creed". Please consider blocking this account and deleting his/her uploads. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Trycatch. Mathonius (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This user has been warned on 15 September 2011 after uploading a lot of non-free pictures copied from elsewhere. Today, he or she continued this behaviour by uploading several copyvio's. Please consider blocking this account and deleting its uploads. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted what was still there, and blocked for a week. Courcelles (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Promotional username

Based on the source of the uploads of Maesawing this is the company name of the product images uploaded, so should probably be blocked as promotional. Images have been nominated for deletion. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the username, and currently we don't have any policy to deal with these cases, also username suggests that they are related to the company, so images could be kept if they send permission.  ■ MMXX  talk 21:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Due to licensing, usernames that purport to represent companies aren't allowed. One user per username no matter if that is policy on Commons or not. :-) Killiondude (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate clarification on this. Also from the other end, such as where an OTRS member is aware that an account is being operated by a company to upload its photos and likely being operated by more than one individual at said company. – Adrignola talk 00:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
IMO on Commons it's not really important, we have many similar cases that different organizations use their name for their accounts to upload possibly promotional images but they might also be willing to send permission and that's useful for us too, I must say I can trust these accounts better for sending the permission, because one of their goals is to promote their organization!  ■ MMXX  talk 00:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No... that's not right at all. Sure, they're promoting their company, but they probably don't understand the licensing at all and just want to get an image up. The person working the "company account" could be some lowly intern who may not have (legal standing) permission to give that file a free license.
@Adrig, see w:WP:ROLE, if you haven't before that is. Killiondude (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but I don't see how you can apply Wikipedia policy to Commons. Nothing in Wikimedia's terms of use prohibit use of an account by multiple individuals. Keep in mind that the underlying issue you describe is normally handled by tagging the images as lacking permission and then having direct contact established through OTRS, with an email template sent that discloses the terms in full and verifies the identity of the submitter. As for "lowly interns", we recently saw a DMCA take-down request submitted for images tagged with OTRS tags. There's not enough OTRS volunteers to handle tickets normally and nearly everyone writing in is already frustrated with us as it is; it would be a nightmare to request written permission scanned in from every company's legal department, if they even have one, and question people directly as to whether they have the "authority" to release images after already submitting the template to us stating they own the copyright. – Adrignola talk 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's preferred that companies use such accounts. This is not English language Wikipedia. --  Docu  at 21:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks, just wanted you to know that I've seen this topic and am asking for clarification from our legal team. Thanks. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Statement reflecting the mind of the legal team
I've spoken with our legal team, and, in the view of WMF, a company role account could arguably raise improper trademark use issues at times, especially without any clear authorization from the company. Additionally, there are possible attribution issues - that is, someone is arguably attributing certain statements or images to the company, maybe without that company's authorization. Although liability only rests with the account holder if there were a challenge in court, the Foundation's position is that we would far prefer individual accounts to avoid these issues. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The most common case I see is a company-related name that is actually only operated by a single individual. Maybe the community will take your comments as an incentive to ratify Commons:Username policy in some manner with some content that can be agreed upon and influenced by the legal team's position. – Adrignola talk 22:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you convey this to User:BrooklynMuseum and User:Bundesarchiv-B6? --  Docu  at 20:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There is also User:Kramer Associates. --  Docu  at 15:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Adrignola: I don't see any grandfather provisions there, - and no practical change. A typical modus operandi of a promotional account is to register, upload a small bunch of images, return to wikipedia and then (usually) they vanish forever. Blocking them afterwards makes little sense. There are very slight chances of intercepting them before uploads. Perhaps, if blocks on wikipedia were also effective on commons, this could work. Here, there's too little manpower to do it timely. NVO (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please block Flecha Negra (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims at a rapid rate in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 08:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection needed

{{Documentation-tag}}, {{Example-tag}}, {{Discuss-tag}} all need protecting, due to interface use via {{Gadget-desc}}. Rd232 (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. NB I notice you linked here in your edit summaries, but that would be more effective if you used a Permanent Link. Rd232 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please block Kekoalmeida (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) 20:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for one week.  ■ MMXX  talk 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


Plese add new version:

{{autotranslate|base=PD-USGov-USDA}}<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|{{{category|[[Category:PD USDA|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{In category|PD USDA}}
{{Documentation}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:PD-USGov license tags|USDA]][[en:Template:PD-USGov-USDA]][[vi:Bản mẫu:PD-USGov-USDA]]</noinclude>

Thanks. Kobac (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please use {{Editprotected}} in the future for this kind of request. – Adrignola talk 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pls protect images to be used on EN main page

File:Extermination of Evil Shinchū dyk.jpg and File:4-lane motorway on Istrian Y.jpg are queued for main-page use in DYK at EN Wikipedia within the next 36 hours. Please protect them temporarily. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - A.Savin 05:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Pls protect

Please revert the edit at 16:16, 2011 September 24 and protect the the page, per talk. --  Docu  at 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bell.jpg

Please fully protect this title, similar to what's been done with images such as File:Front.jpg. The edit history shows that multiple images that show a en:bell have been wrongly uploaded over this photo of the skyline of de:Bell (Hunsrück). I've moved the image to File:Bell im Hunsrück.jpg, so Bell.jpg is a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you convert five files into redirects to Name.jpg? File:Campus.JPG, File:Doctor.jpg, File:Header.jpg, File:Logo.JPG, and File:Wiki.jpg are all duplicates of File:Name.jpg, and all are fully-protected generic "Please upload a more descriptive title" images. As redirects, they would work just as well as File:Front.jpg does. Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This file is subject to edit warring involving open proxies, and is therefore in need of temporary edit protection (semiprotection is probably sufficient). Generally speaking, it would be good if more admins kept Commons:Open proxy detection on their watchlist. LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Please block the open proxies too. See meta:No open proxies. One year is the typical block duration used for open proxies here on Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
190.144.13.66 is blocked now, but was already globally blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I should have checked that. :o) Thanks! LX (talk, contribs) 14:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please protect images for use on main page at EN

Please apply short-term full protection to three images that in the queue for DYK on the EN main page over the next few days:

Thanks in advance! --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

please unblock this file and re-categorize Category:St. Chrischona TV tower to Category:Photomontages. There is no need to categorize a file that has no encyclopedic use in an encyclopedic category. This file is in non encyclopedic article embedded but only in a nonsense discussion. I guess admin Jcb needs here some coaching. I am not a vandal how he called me by reverting and blocking the file. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't see this. The image is not a photomontage, and it does depict St. Chrischona TV tower. Hence the catogirazation does not seem to need change. More precisely, your suggestion for change is not appropriate. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Your arguments are not comprehensible. This picture is an clear image processing. Can you please denominate an encyclopedic use for this 90 degrees rotated picture? --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It is in use. I don't see any problem having it categorized as it is. It is not a photomontage, as no two or more images are put together. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Please answer my question and do not excuse. An picture with image processing that false the realty has not to be put in the encyclopedic category. As admin you should know this. The use is not an encyclopedic use. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
          • You should have understood that my answer is "not done". But I will leave this to another admin to finalize. I disagree with you that a rotated image should be out of project scope or kept out the category of the depicted object. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
            • It is not very effective to go round the key point. Third and last attempt: why is a rotated image that does not show the reality in project scope? I have nothing against humoresque pictures in this project but not in the encyclopedic categories. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What's about putting the image in a sub category of the existing one? -- aka 17:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing against this proposal. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I struggle to imagine a meaningful name - for a single meaningless photo. NVO (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, meaningless photo is spot-on - but "in use". --High Contrast (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, High Contrast. But a special category would be okay. How about Category:St. Chrischona TV tower picture derivatives or something like that. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This would be okay. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thx --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. And my apologies for my initial inflexible attitude. Lymantria (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott00 (Bighead08 sockpuppet)

Please block Scott00 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Category:Sockpuppets of Bighead08, and delete their contributions, which are copyright violations. LX (talk, contribs) 15:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Martin H. LX (talk, contribs) 05:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Category/update to Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category. --  Docu  at 07:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please show the discussion where consensus was achieved for adding "ships by shipyard" in addition to "ships" present in the current category edit notice affecting thousands of categories. – Adrignola talk 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't affect thousands of categories and has no effect on usability.
You haven't shown consensus for your edits yet, despite that does affect usability and you were requested to fix that. --  Docu  at 15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
"no effect on usability" read "no adverse effect on usability". --  Docu  at 04:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request simply places at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category what used to be at MediaWiki:Editnotice-14. It doesn't actually add what Adrignola suggests, but fixes a problem with his edit. Now that Template:editnotice load was implemented, it needs to be placed at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category to keep working as before. --  Docu  at 04:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you want to circumvent the protection on the template by transcluding an unprotected page. If you want an edit made to the page, you can use {{Editprotected}} like everyone else. – Adrignola talk 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it worked that way before. It just fixes a misuse of administrator tools by yourselves. --  Docu  at 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Abuse! Also: inb4CommonsisnotWikipedia Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"inb4CommonsisnotWikipedia" as in "ThisisCommonswhereadminscandowhatevertheywant"? Like "destroyedithistories" --  Docu  at 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As Docu said, "it worked that way before": MediaWiki:Editnotice-14 used to transclude Commons:Categories/editnotice, an unprotected page. However this structure appears to have been instigated by Docu about a year ago, and possibly it didn't have wide enough support and was a bit "under the radar". So perhaps, rather than requesting a restoration of the status quo ante, there should be a discussion at COM:VP or COM:VPR on whether that editnotice should be contained in a protected page or not. Rd232 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem with initiating a discussion, but we can't have admins doing edits, just because it crosses their mind that it might be good to have. Thus, let's get this back working. I understand that Adrignola didn't quite have a grasp of admin tools when he started this and I'm glad he already fixed the confusing merging of the edit history, but I think the reasonable thing to expect from an admin is that he undoes his edits and seeks consensus first if he notices that his edits don't meet consensus especially in a field he is rarely active and seems to be primarily experimenting with his toolbox. --  Docu  at 18:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I tried to put it as nicely as I could, but to echo your tone precisely: we can't have editors creating unprotected editnotices, just because it crosses their mind that it might be good to have. Let's put aside the blame game and just get consensus on the idea. I've started a discussion at Commons:Village_pump#Commons:Categories.2Feditnotice. Rd232 (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Most edit notices are unprotected. I think it's the other way round, if you want to implement a change that doesn't meet consensus, you have to seek consensus first. Clearly, Adrignola didn't seek that.
Anyways, given the comments of Adrignola when this was first discussed, I suppose I should agree with Killiondude. --  Docu  at 10:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Most edit notices are unprotected." - Well that's just not true, because everything under Template:Editnotices (even the documentation subpages, unfortunately; I thought we fixed that?) is protected, eg:

  1. Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Creator
  2. Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Institution
  3. Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category

The only unprotected editnotice I can find is one template which isn't a subpage of Template:Editnotices@

  1. Template:Editnotice userpage

Rd232 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I spoke about editnotices at Commons in general, not the ones under Template:Editnotices. --  Docu  at 07:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I understood that. What other ones are there? I looked in Category:Editnotice templates. Rd232 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Rd232's proposal on VP was withdrawn. Thus please repair the previous edit by moving Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Category/update to Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category. Thanks. --  Docu  at 02:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


Could someone please administer a short-term block to Beagle84 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps requesting transfers from a Flickr account with questionable licensing despite my request to hold until the matter is resolved. LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

@LX, he is sysop on :no and also not a newcomer on Commons, though that doesn't make errors impossible. IMO, filing of an example DR, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antenning av propanbrann på Nidarø (1984).jpg, is the best way, as its result may be applied to his other uploads. Eventually {{PD-Norway50}} might be applicable to some older images, provided the requirements are met. For some of the uploaded photos, author name was available on Flickr, but was not correctly entered into the description on Commons. I've notified him about that. --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Since I first asked them to stop uploading files from this Flickr account, they've not responded, but instead uploaded more than 40 additional files, several of which were taken during the last decade, like File:Storbrann i Dronningens gate, Nordre gate og Thomas Angells gate (2002).jpg and File:Brann i Søndre gate 24 (2006).jpg. Admin or not – errors or not – charging blindly ahead when others ask you to stop for a moment and discuss – that's disruptive. LX (talk, contribs) 14:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
O.k., he should have replied to your initial message. However, after I notified him about the author names[25], he did indeed add them. --Túrelio (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Would someone close (or draw an intermediate conclusion) to the above discussion and remove Category:Ships by name from

  1. Category:Ships named Minden
  2. Category:Ships by type of name
  3. Category:Ships by name by type

by moving them (back) to Category:Ship names and afterwards protect these three category descriptions temporarily. It seems that the main supporter reverts any edit that goes across his. --  Docu  at 17:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is still open. --  Docu  at 04:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
and 02:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please block 178.232.124.8 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who continues to charge ahead with a large number of disruptive deletion nominations of photos depicting sculptures in Sweden, in spite of being informed that they are covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden. LX (talk, contribs) 11:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You both failed to notice that I stopped to nominate pictures of public monuments in Sweden after I was made aware of my error. I'm sorry I didn't know that art works place in public places in Sweden are public domain, and I am sorry that I nominated the pictures for deletion. I did however not do it to disrupt. And, I was blocked after I had stopped doing so, when I was nominating pictures of artworks by Gustav Vigeland in Norway. They are not in the public domain. Please remove the block. --89.8.242.183 12:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Please also read COM:De minimis. -- RE rillke questions? 12:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You were first informed in one of the deletion discussions you started. After that, you nominated File:Athletics WM sculpture in Gbg.jpg (twice!) and File:Badresorna till Askim.jpg in quick succession without responding. I then informed you again on your talk page, which, again, you did not respond to in any way and instead proceeded to nominate File:Balansören.jpg for deletion. Given that you have now become responsive, I'll support the block being lifted, provided that your first action is the withdraw each and every incorrect deletion nomination you have started, including marking the deletion discussion as closed and removing the deletion templates from the files in question. Are you willing to do that? LX (talk, contribs) 12:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I was blocked after I had stopped the good faith, but wrong, edits. With the reasoning that I just kept doing wrong, and you didn't look at my most recent edits. I stopped making the bad edits when I got the message on my user page. From my edit pattern it should be obvious to you that I was looking at other files I thought had the same problem as the ones I had already tagged, ergo was I looking on other pages than the ones you were giving me messages on, and I didn't see it. I am not familiar with the technicalities of this website, and English is not my first language. It takes me a very long time to write this. I make edit errors, like tagging a page twice, because the first one didn't take properly. I belive you are supposed to use good faith, and I think you fail to do so. Now this has become a silly power struggle. The time limit of the block is up, I am clearly editing from a different IP, and I am being told that you will consider lifting the block if I remove the wrongful deletion requests. Well, just because this is so silly I wont do that. I am allowed to error. So are you. But you are not able to admit you made an error, and this is what that brings you. Sorry. --46.15.68.105 13:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If this took you so long to write, I would expect something more polite like "Yes I regret that I made a lot of wrong requests and I will undo my mistakes. Sorry for this." BTW: It takes me also a lot of time to close the wrong requests. -- RE rillke questions? 13:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

I have just blocked User:Pieter Kuiper for three days for disruptive editing and vandalism and would like other admins to review this block. Please see User talk:Pieter Kuiper#File:Anda Safranska.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anda Safranska.jpg for information. Thank you. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 15:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a misuse of admin tools if you block users just because they disagree with you. You should unblock him and let other admin decide. --  Docu  at 16:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't block for disagreeing, but for disruptive editing and vandalism. Like making a deletion request and then arguing in it to keep the files in question just because you don't like them being tagged as missing permission. --Rosenzweig τ 16:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
An odd thing about DRs at Commons is that you need to do one to remove some of the tags.
There isn't really anything disruptive about following that procedure. Arguing that a file should be kept, but misses permission is strange though. Not sure where you want to go .. --  Docu  at 16:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought it would be for repeatedly using edit summaries for personal attacks. LX (talk, contribs) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I've reopened the DR. If you disagree with somebody, do not block them, discuss. Pieter's actions were entirely correct -- if several users disagree over a deletion tag, they should move the discussion to a DR, and let the community to decide. From what I see, the block was unfounded, and to make it worse you blocked your opponent in the edit war. Trycatch (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll take the advice and have unblocked him. There already was quite a bit of discussion about the file in question in the previous DR, so it's doubtful whether any more will bring a solution. We'll see. --Rosenzweig τ 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all adding a "No permission" when uploader claims own work is wrong. The correct is to start a DR or leave a note to the uploader. When someone else correct your mistake it is even more wrong to block that user! --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Louis van Gaal

I hope I'm right here (the Vandalism page seems to be only for users...), but the vandalism at File:Louis-van-gaal2-CN.jpg is really annoying and senseless. Should be blocked. Thanks --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the last IP, and protected the image for IPs and new users. Yann (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please protect some images on behalf of the EN main page

Please protect the following images that are queued to go onto the EN main page in DYK over the next 72 hours:

Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, though the first one is already cascade protected. Tiptoety talk 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This file continually attracts vandalism, please semi-protect it for a long while. Hekerui (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

O.k., 6 months. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Hekerui (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bighead08 unblocked

User:Bighead08's block is expired. Please unblock all sockpuppets of Bighead08. Total Lunar Eclipse (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, why? Sockpuppet accounts are not normally unblocked when the block on the main account expires (if the sockpuppeteer is lucky enough to get another chance). Is there any legitimate reason for this user to have more than one account, and what is your interest in the matter? LX (talk, contribs) 13:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Conanfan

Hi, please block Conanfan (talk · contribs) for multiple copyvios. He received various copyvio notes and nevertheless continued uploading unfree pictures. Thanks, XenonX3 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ blocked for 2 weeks.  ■ MMXX  talk 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a permissions template; it likely should be fully protected, like other permissions templates are. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Jafeluv (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Radiojessore

On en-Wiki
  • Sockmaster w:User:Nazruldbjessore (blocked indefinitely, using Wikipedia to promote Radio Jessore, creating Radiojessore account to evade block)
  • Sockpuppet w:User:Radiojessore (blocked indefinitely for block evasion, corporate username, and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes)
On Commons

Checkuser confirms both accounts are the same. See w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nazrulbdjessore. Both accounts exist for promotional purposes only. Amatulic (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I just request deletion of the images but I no see any reason for blocking here Ezarateesteban 00:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting short-term protection for some files slated for EN main page

Please protect these files that are queued for display on the EN main page in the Did you know feature within the next 48 to 60 hours:

Thanks in advance. --Orlady (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 00:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know: this is not really necessary anymore: the files will be automatically protected as soon as they appear on the main page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Has it been confirmed that the cascading protection works against uploading and not just editing or moving of the page? – Adrignola talk 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Just tested with user:SaibosTester20110612 to upload a new version (it was the same image, just recompressed - no harm if it had worked ;-) ) to File:Dan_Wheldon_2.jpg (which is not protected) - get (even if I select the checkbox "ignore errors"): "Diese Seite ist zur Bearbeitung gesperrt. Sie ist in die folgende Seite eingebunden, die mittels der Kaskadensperroption geschützt ist: Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en". Sadly only after the file was uploaded to the server - which is a bit annoying for someone who tries to upload a real improvement (e.g. a minor touch-up). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 16:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please block Jeronimo1980 (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) 20:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. - A.Savin 08:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please block Christian 777 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations (well over 30 copyright violations with false authorship claims over the course of five months) in spite of multiple warnings, including two "final" warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 05:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a month. --Denniss (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This SVG is not valid (See validation service). Can you repair the locked image ?

To do so, please

1) Download the image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Red_pog.svg)
2) Open it in a plain editor.
3) replace the whole code with
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" width="64" height="64">
 <defs>
  <radialGradient id="Shiny"
    cx="0.5" cy="0.5" r="0.5" fx="0.25" fy="0.25">
   <stop offset="0%" stop-color="#FFFFFF" />
   <stop offset="50%" stop-color="#DD3333" />
   <stop offset="75%" stop-color="#990000" />
   <stop offset="100%" stop-color="#000000" />
  </radialGradient>
 </defs>
 <circle r="30" cx="32" cy="32" fill="url(#Shiny)" />
</svg>
4) Save and upload it.
So you did not need to unlock this important image. Thank you. Antonsusi (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! ✓ Done. --Saibo (Δ) 06:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

Hello dear admins. Category:Commons protected edit requests needs attention. The requests seem to be largely ignored by almost everyone and they've been there for quite some time now. Could someone see to it that they are done? Many thanks --B. Jankuloski (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please protect the meaningless filename File:Sem título.png (log; the name is Portuguese for "untitled") from being recreated. LX (talk, contribs) 18:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We had some problems with a file talk page for this over at en.wp, and it looks like the same thing has happened over here. Worse actually. Users apparently think they are editing an actual article or talk page when they click on the graphic, which is intended to show them what the edit button looks like and where to find it. Maybe some sort of edit notice or something as well? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

S-prot for now (I agree fully with the request but not sure what level is best) - my assumption is that it is newbies/IPs rather than anything else which is the issue - thoughts welcome? --Herby talk thyme 07:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please block Jono52795 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings (now more than a dozen) including a "final" warning five copyright violations ago). The user has been around for two years and still refuses to understand that fair use is not applicable to Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO violations are not too recent to block, another admin might have different opinion though.  ■ MMXX  talk 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
During his periods of activity, he's uploaded between one and three copyright violations per month. The latest one was uploaded yesterday. Is there any reason to believe that his behaviour will change at this time? LX (talk, contribs) 17:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Borderline maybe. No useful contributions at all though and most recent copyvio yesterday so a block for a week may send a better message than the (ignored) warnings. --Herby talk thyme 17:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

On en.wikipedia Nraxt has been indefinite blocked for repeatedly uploading images with false copyright. Neelraxit (talk · contribs) has started doing the same on commons. The user did not respond on en.wikipedia, so I would recommend blocking immediately here. Nev1 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying this user. But this user uploaded just one file by now - that is deleted because of copyright violation. If this user continues uploading copyvios, I support a block. --High Contrast (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This file keeps getting vandalized (removal of headings, applicable maintenance templates and applicable problem tags) by one or more anonymous users (probably the uploader; I doubt anyone else would be particularly interested). It's getting pretty tiresome. Could you please semiprotect it (or just speedy delete it, as it's almost certainly a copyright violation; it was found online and the uploader claims it is simultaneously in the public domain and copyrighted and published under the terms of the Free Art License). LX (talk, contribs) 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Denniss. --Túrelio (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate username: SpringFootballLeague

Promotional username, please block this user. This user has uploaded logo which is not permitted on Commons and advertising about Spring Football League on the description too. --Phanuruch8555 (Talk) 11:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Idea leuconoe Weiße Baumnymphe crop.jpg

Cant't edit my own File here, that is really weird. Please unblock it, at least for me. -- pro2 21:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not show signs of "regular" protection, but seems to be used currently on :en, eventually on te main page. If you want to make a simple edit, write it down here. --Túrelio (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It is today's featured picture on the WP:EN main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Main page FPs are automatically protected for the day to prevent messing up an important page. Why don't you just wait until tomorrow? -- I think that will roll over at 0000UTC, only two hours from now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please block Maurice24012 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please unblock Gino il Pio

Please unblock Gino il Pio (talk · contribs). He was blocked for a month by admin ALE! (talk · contribs) after ALE! had tagged lots of uploads for "no source". Although uploader had provided sources. Some of those uploads, although old, are technically copyright violations, for example the floor plans by Guiseppe Luigi (died in the 1960's). Others are no problem at all, works that are very obviously hundreds of years old, like File:Pal col 1400.jpg, File:Castello di Amantea.jpg, File:Amantea Settecento.jpg, File:SepolcroPalazzolo.jpg. But blocking of course prevents Gino il Pio from providing the source in the format that ALE! seems to need. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, some (but only some) of his upload are really old enough for PD. But I do not agree that blocking prevents him from editing and adding the sources. He can do this as an IP.
As a background for my blocking decision: Since 2008 the uploader has been repeatingly informed by me and other admins of copyright violations which he has conducted. Unfortunately it seems that he is unwilling to learn. --ALE! ¿…? 07:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
That is a big No-No. For example Mutter Erde was blocked for a limited time, and then permbanned for circumventing the block. As to "willing to learn": the uploaded works were more than 70 years old, and in the real non-wikipedia world they would be regarded as free for online use. Also, you do not seem to be aware of {{PD-Italy}} for photos - you need to learn some copyright (and art history) yourself! Your tagging without any discrimination and then your blocking of a serious contributor to the encyclopedia reflects poorly on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
You are probably right with the photos. However, most of the drawings are probably still copyrighted. More than 70 years old is NOT the rule that is applied here. The rule is: the author must have died more than 70 years ago. This is a huge difference! --ALE! ¿…? 13:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In addition I have tagged them as no source and no permission because I wanted to get a second admin opinion. As a lot of the images that I have tagged are getting deleted by other authors confirms my copyvio thoughts. --ALE! ¿…? 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please compare the upload records of Gino il Pio and that of ALE! ? And decide who of them is most blockable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Kuiper (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, you posted a serious concern. It is in no way helpful to impair that with remarks as this. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

These are my impressions of this case as an uninvolved admin:

In summary, I think that it would be best to have an Italian speaking admin in this case who you could explain to Gino il Pio what we can accept at Commons and how important it is to take care of sources and PD status. This is, in my opinion, the better approach than to block a good-willing editor for such long periods. I would also like to stress that the purpose of a block is not to get it circumvented by working under an IP address to fix the uploaded files. Such a suggestion is not helpful. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the block was wrong, and I don't think that the block should be removed if the user doesn't show the will to spend some time in learning about Commons policies. If so, I have no problem to explain him in Italian things like FOP, derivative works, PD-Italy limitations, {{Soprintendenza}} and so on.--Trixt (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If you have the time, I would suggest that you contact him or her on his or her talk page, explaining the problems in Italian and telling that the block can be lifted prematurely if he or she promises to comply to our policies. Thank you for your help, AFBorchert (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please block Matrix-333 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 20:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Jafeluv (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr Kuiper

Please prevent Pieter Kuiper from continuing to hound me and the work I have been asked to manage, as per this discussion!

This has been going on for 3 years now.

When there are real problems with a few of those images, Kuiper can easily get them corrected by asking another user/admin to question them. I am always interested, as well documented, in correcting our mistakes, and am grateful for any and all civil help in doing so. If that's the real reason, other than the unwarranted stalking and hounding that almost all of his complaints are about, wouldn't that be a considerate way of getting them corrected?

Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, when discussions do not go his way he getting wild and uncontrolled. Just my 2 cents. --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
3 years of it now! Can you imagine how exhausted and discouraged I am? And just to prove he has the right to keep bugging me, with carte blanche at Commons to do so, he always bugs me if given a fine chance to choose not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is getting interesting: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unasur member states German.PNG, File talk:Bandera de los andes - san martin - bandera de mendoza.jpg. --ALE! ¿…? 10:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Let's keep this discussion in one place:

Having it open in two places makes no sense at all.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Xraykan sockpuppet BananeyaF

Please block and delete the uploads of BananeyaF (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. (They uploaded the copyvio File:LiLo.gif (a Getty Images photo) and added it to Lindsay Lohan and to tr:Lindsay Lohan (the latter using 85.107.174.5, a Turk Telekom IP address, as is tradition for Xraykan). For those needing a refresher on this puppeteer, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 23#Turkish sockpuppets uploading celebrity copyright violations. LX (talk, contribs) 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


The bot should be blocked until this problem is fixed or a new bot request authorized for this. --  Docu  at 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC) The bot should be block until this problem is fixed or a new bot request authorized for this. --  Docu  at 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A few points here. The bot is not even running presently, and hasn't for almost a day. It wasn't working the set of NARA files with all caps names even when it was last running, either. These files' uploads are complete, and calling for a block is silly. What the bot is actually doing is following the normal naming scheme used for all its uploads, except that for this set, the original archival title is in all caps. I have no particular preference for all caps names. Indeed, the only time this was ever mentioned before, I gave a considered and not very pro-all caps response. As I explained, this involves deciding how we'd change these (Do we want title case, which is still shouty? Is sentence case workable somehow, with proper nouns? Do we really want to alter the works' original titles just for our own aesthetic preferences?) Docu's claim that I am insisting on anything is a fabrication.
What I think we should really be discussing here is his oddly hostile behavior related to the National Archives upload and those of us working on it. It began in the very beginning, with unprovoked personal against Multichill at Commons:Bots/Requests/US National Archives bot. He also seems to prefer to one-off deletion requests of random files in a set, rather than starting a community discussion about a whole set, which is what is also happening here. At one point, he nominated a census card for deletion and gave no explanation or response to the string of keep votes that ensued; there are several thousand other equivalent files uploaded at the same time. Here, he nominated a single one of the several thousand all caps files for deletion, rather than either (1) requesting a simple renaming, (2) asking me about the all caps in titles, or (3) starting a community discussion. This is despite having been told the first time that silly nomination and appeared (at best) to be in bad faith. This time, he also left a {{Be civil}} on my talk page when I disagreed with him, which seems like a vindictive act intended to bait me. I am tired of the time-wasting Docu is causing with spurious requests like this. Dominic (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
For the purpose of this thread, can you confirm that you wont upload any files with ALL CAPS filenames?
BTW, this was listed for deletion because it was a duplicate and you removed {{Duplicate}} from the file description page. --  Docu  at 19:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Well, blocking the bot is not the solution. I think that these titles are often not well descriptive of the file content, much too long, in addition to being all caps. I am not sure if an automated solution is possible, but we need to rename these files somehow. BTW thanks a lot for uploading this. It is a wonderful collection. Yann (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Yann. I do think the titles are often not that great, but, it's also 10,000+ images :) I don't think there would be any harm in renaming some content, and I figure if you find something that needs renaming you can nominate it for a rename. I don't really care about the capitalized titles, I think we have more important things to worry about in Commons. I'm not really sure why Docu seems so fixated with the NARA-bot. Docu, perhaps there are some other things in Commons you can focus on for a while (like some of the backlog work!) or just renaming some of the files that really cause concern! And yes, thank you NARA for the amazing collection contribution! Missvain (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It will create just more backlogs if it isn't fixed. --  Docu  at 19:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's onfortunate that the NARA used all caps, but that's the source. Changing it is very hard, error prone and is trying to solve something that isn't really a problem anyway: These filenames follow Commons:File naming. Multichill (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't see the problem here. What's the issue with all-caps filenames? irs 501(c)(3) public supportAre there any issues with the licensing/attribution/other legal attributes of the contributions? If not, can't this be solved further down the line by bot-renaming the files later on if need be? Gaining new content is significantly more important than fussing over the format of the filename, particularly if that can be systematically sorted out at a later point in time (e.g. by working through the user's contributions to check for all-caps, which is a trivial technical challenge). Caveat, of course, that if this minor issue can easily be sorted at the upload stage then that would be great, but I trust Dominic to know whether this is easily technically possible or not. Mike Peel (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
All cap files names are no big deal. Sure, it's not ideal but I'd much rather we get the files uploaded. If anyone really cares, they can always be renamed later, though think it would be a tricky thing for a bot to do totally correctly. Aude (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
In this cases we can update MediaWiki:Titleblacklist accordingly. --  Docu  at 21:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Erm... that's a page that should be aimed at blocking spam contributions, rather than valid contributions to the project. As such, I'm afraid that I don't understand your reply. :-/ Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently it blocks ALL CAPS filenames. This has nothing to do with spam, but it's about consistent filenames. Apparently a difficult topic for this bot. --  Docu  at 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Then it sounds like the blacklist's functionality is broken - why should it be blocking all caps filenames? There's no technical nor legal reason why those should be problematic. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it's just that there is (or was) a consensus among users that uploaders shouldn't use them. Thus they were restricted and such titles excluded. Some accounts are not bound by the blacklist as we expect them to filter before uploading. --  Docu  at 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I guess this discussion is best held at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#ALLCAPS in general terms, rather than being held in the context of this specific bot. Could you point the discussion there towards where this consensus was previously obtained, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The filenames used by the NARA bot are not all caps so the regex won't match. Multichill (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dominic and others that all caps filenames are not ideal but not using them is a irrelevant cosmetic preference, not something that should put roadblocks in the challenging process of mass upload of this amazing collection. --Jarekt (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The username had represented the organisation (OVLHS), please block this user indefinitely. --Daris Bayliss (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also block User:Celticstudio due to a promotional username + delete the userpage because there are a promotional/advertising stuff there too. --Daris Bayliss (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done both.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Flag of pilot of German Empire

The files File:Flag of Weimar Republic (pilot).svg and File:Flag of Weimar Republic (pilot).svg were overwritten with the comment “code cleanup”. Remove the document type definition and the title has nothing to do with code cleanup. A reset of the files is prevented by re-Reset. Maybe an admin can revert the files to the original version. Unless, vector files with bad SVG-code are welcome. Thank you. --Jörg (Jwnabd) (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block Jaime070996 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of having promised only to upload acceptably licensed images to have their previous block lifted less than a month ago. LX (talk, contribs) 07:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one year. Yann (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
And the user tried flickrwashing. Blocked indefinite, this guys word worth nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Plinio Cayo Cilesio was blocked for a week in April. Since then they've continued to upload copyright violations and taking credit for the work of other Wikimedia contributors. I think it's time for a longer block. LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. Yann (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User Zzyzx11

User:Zzyzx11 deleted nomination page ... why? Link from Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial DSC 2515 2.jpg --W.Rebel (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ZZyzx11 deleted Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial DSC 2515 2.jpg at 19:40, 13 November 2011 with the edit comment,
"Accidental creation: Nomination page should be at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial DSC 2515 2.jpg"
As ZZyZx11's edit comment said, the page lacked the necessary prefix for a nomination page, but W Rebel apparently did not read the edit comment and recreated the bad page at 21:45, 13 November 2011.
W Rebel figured out his or her mistake at 21:52 and corrected the nomination page, but did not bother to remove the accusation above.
I deleted the faulty page a second time at 22:50, 13 November 2011.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block Lulylulu15 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 20:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Obvious copyright violations deleted. User blocked for 2 weeks. Let's hope that they now get the message. russavia (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody protect this image? Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch 21:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done I'd suggest a name change -- the current name is very generic, which probably why it has attracted attention. Just use {{Rename}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This file should not be protected. It was protected per COM:OVERWRITE, but that does not apply to colour corrections. New information can come alone about basic roundels and their colours, and the file being protected impedes that. Only high-use files which have either been under edit wars or are under threat of them should be protected in such a manner. Fry1989 eh? 06:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Is your intended edit going to consist simply of reverting to a previous version? If so, I won't unprotect the file, and would urge other admins to not do likewise. Rather I would direct you to File talk:Transnistria Air Force Roundel.svg and explain what change you want to make, and where info is coming from. Inform the other editor as well, and if they don't respond within a reasonable timeframe, you can then use {{Editprotected}} to request admin assistance. russavia (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not my intention. There are about 300 roundels here on Commons, and 'none of them are protected in this manner. There is no justification of any sort for this one to be. I intend to leave it alone, however I find the idea of it being protected while another 300 are not rediculous. Fry1989 eh? 23:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
If any of the others are subject to counter-productive edit warring, please let me know and I will protect them too. You are partially to blame for this needing protection. If you still believe your version is correct, and are unable to convince the uploader, why haven't you gone ahead with my suggestion to upload it to another filename? --99of9 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You want us to unprotect it so that you can edit war again... erm... no. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Think about what you're saying. What do I possibly have to gain from that? You unprotect it, and instantly I start reverting and get in an edit war over it? What could that possibly result in other than it's immediate re-protection. There is no justification of this file being protected. There are countless other roundels that have been under edit wars, and they aren't protected. What makes this one so special? Fry1989 eh? 00:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The justification is here: "usually only used to combat vandalism and edit wars". It is normally temporary, as it was in this case, but since the war continued after protection expired, I figured it might as well stay. Even if you don't intend to continue the war, there's a fair chance that someone else will, and the uploader seems very clear on preserving the colours in his/her source. So, unless someone has a specific edit request, I see no reason to invite reopening the war. --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
"the uploader seems very clear on preserving the colours in his/her source", which raises another problem: extreme ownership. The uploader does not own the file, and if new sources were to come showing something different, he should have to engage in a discussion about them, not use Admins' protection powers to do his dirty work. Fry1989 eh? 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It is vere simple Fry1989. Whilst no-one owns the file, to engage in reverting without using the talk page is a tad disruptive. Your case would be stronger if you were to use the talk page first, then admins wouldn't be so disinclined to unlock the file, because as it seems at the moment, unprotection is being requested so that the same behaviour that led to it being protected in the first place can be continued. I don't think there is any admin who would do that. Use talk page, request an edit to be made, and then we can see where to go from there. russavia (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please Delete File

Please delete the file located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photo_eyes.jpg

I uploaded the file myself, I own it. I meant to upload a different image.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndsywelgos (talk • contribs) 2011-11-16T03:10:31‎ (UTC)

It was already discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo eyes.jpg. And you got an answer here: Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Photo eyes.jpg. Did you read the answer by Jim there? Please do so. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The editor above removed the photo from the enwp article claiming "copyright". Does the uploader in fact own the copyright to this image? russavia (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The uploader claims to own the copyright to the file, but he or she licensed it here two years ago under CC-BY-SA/GFDL so there is no copyright problem. Therefore there are no grounds on which it can be removed from Mia Theodoratus -- in fact such a removal amounts to vandalism. I see that Russavia has replaced it there.
I suggest again to Lyndsywelgos that we can remove his or her name from the file only if he or she chooses to change the license to CC-0, which is putting it into the Public Domain. Please request that here, as the file is protected.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block Deodoro da Fonseca (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. They've been around for a year and still think Commons is a place for uploading random non-free Google search results. LX (talk, contribs) 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 3 month, another admin might have different opinion about duration though, feel free to reduce it.  ■ MMXX  talk 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think 3 months is fine. Yann (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block Jhonesilverio (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. They've been around for nearly two years and have uploaded over 30 files, but have yet to manage to upload a single free file. LX (talk, contribs) 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, time is right for a longer wiki holiday. I gave him 6 months. Images deleted. Yann (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block Westerly (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. LX (talk, contribs) 07:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 month and latest copyvio deleted. As there is a couple of files which are likely not copyvios, I have made the block length 1 month instead of longer. russavia (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I have amended the block to 2 weeks due to being first block. Other admin feel free to extend or shorten as per your own discretion. russavia (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block Luca-pc (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), which is a sockpuppet of currently blocked user Luca-PC (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). In light of the original account's history, the sockpuppet's uploads are obvious copyright violations and need to be deleted. The block for the original account should also be extended because of the block evasion and continued copyright violations. LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuked, blocked, etc - sorry short on time. --Herby talk thyme 16:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
LUCA-pc (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log as well, please. LX (talk, contribs) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked user and deleted contributions. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For completeness - just picked up another one via CU - blocked, nuked. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK on en wiki

Hi, can someone please protect File:Serpula vermicularis 2.jpg and File:RPS Rajah Soliman D-66.jpg which will be on the en wiki mainpage sometime in the next 36 hours? Cheers, Casliber (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thanks! Casliber (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jo0doe

Jo0doe (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked on the Russian Wikipedia since December 2009 and on the English Wikipedia since October 2010 for tendentious and disruptive editing, especially on matters pertaining to Ukraine and the Holodomor. He has since opened up another front here on Commons to continue this pattern of editing, the most salient example being on this photo, evidenced by the revision history, which he maintains—contrary to both consensus and sources—is a hoax photograph. The fact that this photo is used prominently on the English w:Holodomor article means that he can use his editing privileges here to circumvent his block and continue to cause disruption/confusion on en-wiki: see for example here and here (rvt). Jo0doe knows that what he is doing is unacceptable; he has been blocked around a dozen times on the en/ru wikis combined and warned/otherwise sanctioned numerous other times (including an indefinite topic-ban from Holodomor-related articles under w:WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions on en-wiki). He needs no further warnings, only a hefty block. Commons should not be a place for disruptive editors to go so that they may continue to indirectly mess around on the places that they have been banished from. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to second the above motion as I too have had to deal with him on English wiki before his ban. Here is another image he keeps warring on UPA flag. I don't understand his reasoning, its entirely something he made up...and it seems trivial, even for him. But he's persistent.--Lvivske (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Seconded seconded.--96.232.1.18 19:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)--Galassi (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Double seconded 99.229.188.190 21:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd say one thing in defense of Jo0doe: the issue with authenticity of that Holodomor image is rather complex and I believe Jo0doe might acted in a good faith. Having done my own research, I myself held strong suspicions against that photo, since there are sources that question the authenticity of the set of photographs in the publication from where it was taken, and the authenticity of some images in that set was disproved. It required a long discussion in a mediation on the English Wikipedia to establish the sources supporting the authenticity and excluding the photo from the problematic part of the set. Jo0doe just might be not aware of all the relevant information. Greyhood (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Good faith would be a valid defence for an individual without the abysmal track record of Jo0doe. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Per above comments there might have been *some* point where good faithed could be assumed, per Greyhood's comments. At *this* point however, that's not in the feasible set. Hell, here we have a situation where Jodoe himself provided a source which attests to the authenticity of the image, then, once that was pointed out to him, tried to lie about it and misrepresented the source repeatedly. And it's not like the guy exactly listens to reason. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed my previous post, and given the complexity of some issues, and given my knowledge of some of these issues and also my warnings to ALL editors on the talk page, I am now working on what I am proposing as blocks. I would ask that other admins wait for judgement so that I can propose what I think is fair. I would go ahead and block them already as I see fit, as per my warning on the talk page, but it is important for my own information that what I suggest is fair the explanation I have given. Thanks, russavia (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How about you disengage here given that you are deeply involved with some of the participants, up to and including being banned from addressing them on English Wikipedia? It very much looks like an attempt to abuse your admin powers on Commons to "settle some scores" spilled over from English wiki. Scraping the bottom of my good-faith cup I can maybe understand how initially your intervention was meant to be positive, but your subsequent comments and threats look like a straight up conflict of interest in a topic area which you usually have no interest in (aside from the fact that some en-wiki people you don't like happen to be involved). Presumably there exist other administrators on Commons perfectly capable of addressing the issue. Go away.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Russavia's input as an editor is welcomed here. However, due to potential conflicts of interest, I personally believe that he should not participate as an administrator in this discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Some pertinent information should be disclosed: I posted notices to the talkpage of the user in question here on Commons, as well as to the talkpages of several individuals who I remembered had had interactions with J. I posted to their en-wiki talkpages, as I figured that the users were more active on en-wiki than here.
In addition, I feel it pertinent to mention that Russavia is involved in active arbitration proceedings on en-wiki, and that I have made some admittedly incendiary remarks against him there. This is not meant as a smear tactic, this is meant as a disclosure of relevant context. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  • On 18 September 2011, I locked the file page because of continued disruptive edit warring.
  • Because these are inexperienced editors on Commons I posted advice on how to proceed at File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Description_page_locked and File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Note_on_what_is_needed
  • File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Still_no_source_for_1933 demonstrates that we are dealing with inexperienced Commons editors as I explain to them what "published" means.
  • Yesterday I received on my English WP talk page a message from "Lothar von Richthofen" advising of this discussion on Commons.
  • I responded and asked Lothar in future to keep such notices on my Commons talk page, as enwp is separate from Commons, and my admin actions on Commons play no part of my actions on enwp, and vice versa.
  • Whether Jo0doe is active or banned on another project is irrelevant. It is possible to be in good standing on one but disruptive on another. And vice versa.
  • At first glance at Lothar’s request, I was thinking that a block of Jo0doe was warranted, and I was fully prepared to make it. This is due ONLY to Jo0doe's edits on that file.
  • However, it was also clear to me that undeclared canvassing had occurred and I wouldn't be blocking Jo0doe immediately, but rather investigating.
  • The edit history of the file shows that The Last Angry Man, Jo0doe, Volunteer Marek and Lothar von Richthofen have all acted disruptively since it was unprotected.
  • The talk page has been used a total of 2 times since I first protected the file page. Once by Jo0doe to try and introduce somewhat irrelevant evidence. Once by Lothar in which he responds to Jo0doe, and also engages in a low-level personal attack.
  • Canvassing from Lothar on enwp results in Lvivske, Galassi, and a couple of IP editors arriving here to join the block chorus. Whilst I am willing to assume good faith on Lothar's explanation (so long as it is not done again), I am not willing to ignore the disruption caused by other editors as a result.
  • Lothar's message on my en talk page could be responsible for the appearance of Greyhood.
  • Lvivske's evidence is bogus (not to mention almost 12 months out of date). He edit warred as much as Jo0doe on that file -- sometimes it appears Lvivske has editted as an IP?. He omits the talk page where Jo0doe possibly presents evidence of what he had stated.
  • Is Lvivske the editor who made this IP edit after Lvivske posted here?
  • Lvivske was NOT involved in recent disruptive events on the only file that Lothar presented evidence for.
  • Galassi (talk · contribs) has made all of 2 edits on Commons -- one at this thread. His arrival from enwp is disruptive. As is the other unknown IP editor arrival. Check users could be run here if needed.
  • All reverts made since the first protection have been disruptive reverts - each edit adding and removing information that is disputed or not-disputed.
  • No-one has used the talk page, nor have they requested admin assistance to lock the file again.
  • It was my intent to block Lothar, Volunteer Marek, Jo0doe, The Last Angry Man, Lvivske and Galassi for one-day for their disruption here. (And check out the other IP as well). Any block I was going to make was going to be placed here for comment first, because of what was stated in the close at my RfA. I was willing to check first with other admins on this occasion. I was also willing to drop the block in return for each editor confirming that they would use the talk page and get it worked out instead of constant reverting.
  • Comments I made at my own RfA; it is very important as an admin to stay uninvolved with editors on this project when carrying out admin functions, because although one may be in dispute with an editor on another project, this does not necessarily carry over to this project.
  • I will gladly stand aside and let another admin on this occasion only deal with this, and I will act here in an editorial capacity only. Although my thoughts here and my actions as an admin are obviously going to be taken into account, otherwise disruptive editors get to undermine the processes that they ignored.
  • As an admin I am also willing to put up with a certain amount of abuse from inexperienced editors, as has been seen even here at this very request. But this is not about me; it is about disruption on the file by 4 editors.
  • The editorial conduct on that file talk page prior to my first protection is atrocious -- assumptions of bad faith by all parties, personal attacks on each other, etc. Such conduct appears to have gone on for 12 months, and today the file is still a candidate for deletion.
  • I will note to the admin who acts upon this, that the first time the file page was protected by me was preventative. Advice by a trusted member of the community was ignored by all editors, and upon the protection expiration each of the four editors in question continued the behaviour that caused the file page to be protected in the first place.
  • Each of these editors are responsible for their actions. It is a shame that some are portraying my admin actions as the complete opposite of what it actually was, and have attempted to import dramuh from enwp and ruwp, yet none have actually recognised there is a problem with their own actions on Commons. russavia (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
"Lvivske was NOT involved in recent disruptive events on the only file that Lothar presented evidence for." I was involved in the photo discussion, that's clear in the edit history and my talk page (of which there are 2 discussions to it). Just because I didn't keep up with it doesn't uninvolve me. My history on EN wiki trying to deal with Jo0doe's disruptive edits is documented enough. Also, the picture (which you now put a lock on? what the heck?) was not referenced by J, he gave a non english resource and nothing else. Page number? Anything? He says one thing and points to random sources to deflect his disruptions an this is another example of this tactic of time wasting.--Lvivske (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You weren't involved in recent discussions on the file that has now been indefinitely protected. History on enwiki is irrelevant here, especially if you have been disruptive here as much as the person you are trying to get blocked. Indeed, I would say that on the file that you mentioned, you have both been disruptive, yet Jo0doe is the only person to mention anything close to a source. This is not a random source, and he even mentions page number 182. You have presented no sources from what I can see. My discretion in locking the file page is my discretion as an admin, and was done as a preventative measure. The fact that I have locked it, now means that you are all going to have to discuss this on the talk page, and you won't get blocked for edit warring in the future. Consider this as a positive thing. You are welcome to use the talk page and use {{Editprotected}} to request an edit to be made, and an admin will attend to it. If no discussion is initiated within the month whilst protected, and reverting is done once unprotected, obviously this will be seen as disruptive. russavia (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
yet Jo0doe is the only person to mention anything close to a source. Are you being daft? Yes, Jo0doe "presents" a source and then lies about what is in it, or continues to insist that it supports him when it very clearly does not. Like when he posted a photograph which he claimed proved the photo was from 1922, even though the photograph had "1933" very clearly written on it. Or like when he linked to the Bairoch source claiming that it stated the photo was from 1922, even though the author explicitly mentions this photo as part of the authentic collection from 1930's. And so on and on and on for two years, across multiple projects. How do you have a conversation with someone who just simply denies reality? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Lvivske, I am not condoning Jo0doe's behaviour, nor am I condoning yours. However, in relation to File:OUN-r Flag 1941.svg, I have had it independently verified by two people -- one a non-native Ukrainian speaker who is somewhat on this project; the other a native Ukrainian speaker who is not on the project -- what is contained in this document which is noted here by Jo0doe on the talk page of the other file in question. Both have confirmed that the document (from the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences) states the flag of the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (KUN) is rectangular, and is divided into 2 equal horizontal halves. The top half is red and the lower half is black. The document also states that the KUN flag is itself the flag of the OUN-r (also known as OUN-B) which was adopted in 1941. The document also states that the OUN-r is not a legalised political party or civic organisation, and therefore it's symbols are not legalised. If anyone doubts this, they are free to obtain their own translation of the document, and corrections to this independently obtained assessment of the document are of course welcome.
Jo0doe presented this source on the talk page on 5 November 2010, and you started reverting on 11 December 2010. Jo0doe even mentioned amidst the slow edit war that the info was on the talk page. You did post on the talk page on 11 December 2010 as well, however, no source to challenge that presented by Jo0doe was offered. It is now being expected that if there is evidence of this flag also being the flag of the UPA, that this be presented on the talk page. At this stage you can all work together to write a description which matches what sources say. And a rename, if required, can also be looked at.
Also, this goes to all editors, it could be considered good practice for any editor when discussing possibly contentious issues such as the flag file, that when sources are presented in a language other than the language which issues are being discussed in, and the editor is capable of providing their own true translation of what is contained in the source, that this be done.
I will placing a link to this diff on the talk page of the file in question, because it is going to be doubted whether I will be able to act, but I know that other admins will not be as lenient as I in the event that an edit war is resumed after editors have expressly been warned against it. And that goes for all editors as well. russavia (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
In response to accusations of "canvassing" leveled against me, I would like to repost what I said at R's en-wiki talkpage:
"Per w:WP:CANVASS, we see the following as acceptable: "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) ... The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions [I sent a message to you, didn't I? you were the only one who I remembered having supported/tolerated J. to any capacity]—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." Notification ≠ canvassing."
"I did not canvass. I notified a handful of users (Lvivske, Volunteer Marek, Russavia, and Timotheus Canens) who had been involved in past discussions pertaining to J with a brief message worded in a neutral manner. I notified individuals who had opposed J in the past as well as the only one I could remember having ever supported him. None of this was done with intent of secrecy; posting to en-wiki talkpages was done for the mere fact that I believed that the users I was notifying were more active there than here, and that they would be more likely to see them. I request that Russavia withdraw his mischaracterisation of my actions. Use of the term "canvassing" implies bad faith and only serves to further muddy these already turbid waters. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
With regards to number of edits here, which Russavia brought up in reference to Galassi (who came here of his own accord, not by me "canvassing" him), I should like to point out that Jo0doe made a grand total of 4 edits here prior to his en-wiki block. He has edited here in virtually the exact same topic areas in which he caused trouble on en-wiki. I stand by my assertion that Jo0doe came here to further his "dramuh" after having been barred from other projects. The rest of us came here to contain it, as images here get used on wikis. Deliberately misleading titles and descriptions cause problems on wikis; Commons is where this misinformation is introduced. Acting like actions here are not connected with actions on other projects is simply wrong. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Your actions on enwp are not being questioned here, because if you read I assume good faith in regards to your explanation, as I hope other admins will. The mentioning of your canvassing on enwp is, to quote yourself, "not meant as a smear tactic, this is meant as a disclosure of relevant context" for the arrival of uninvolved editors to back your call for a block/ban. Some of whom have acted disruptively here as well. Other than that anything else, including enwp/ruwp policies and disputes, is irrelevant here, so there is no point in bringing those up.
What is relevant is Commons policies such as Commons:Essential information and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.
Because I know such files are important for use on other projects, I was obviously giving those who have a vested interest in its retention an opportunity to provide evidence of its copyright status, inline with Commons policies. I was acting in my capacity as an admin on that file, because I may still have to act on it as an admin in the future if it is put up for deletion. It is in your interest to be given the opportunity to ascertain clear copyright status on the file. This is what was done.
We on Commons don't care whether the photo is of the 1921 Russian famine or the 1932-33 Soviet famine. What we care about first and foremost is the copyright status. By working out the copyright status it is possible that everything else falls into place.
Trying to omit Jo0doe from the discussion on this is counter-productive to an extent. Yes, he has been disruptive, as have you all, but he has produced some evidence on other files as I have shown above. An instruction, such as that which I gave, will deal with irrelevant things. Any disruption could then be dealt with. And here we are. It is difficult for any admin to act on disruption by one editor only, when evidence shows it is not only that individual engaging in such behaviour. russavia (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The only people being disruptive here is Jo0do and a certain admin who has been enabling him in pursuit of a personal vendetta.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You continue to use the label "canvassing" to describe my actions. Either you do not understand the policy on canvassing and continue to use the loaded term "canvassing" to erroneously describe simple, policy-permitted notification, or you are assuming bad faith on my part.
I have no idea what you are trying to say by asserting that I am "trying to omit Jo0doe from the discussion". Jo0doe is the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If I were you, I would be forgetting about wasting anymore time here and start concentrating on what Beria wrote at File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#So.... You all have until 1 January to sort out the copyright status, otherwise the photo is deleted. I have clearly told you all that there are problems with the file at File_talk:Child_affected_by_malnutrition.jpg#Note_on_what_is_needed. The longer you spend here discussing irrelevant things, and the less time you spend discussing that photo's copyright status, the more it could look to others that you are less interested in Commons and its goals, and the more interested you are in pursuing personal disputes with other editors from other projects here. Of course, I imagine, that none of you get that, which is why, this page is now being taken off my watchlist, and there will be no more reply from me, and so long as you don't discuss at File talk:Child affected by malnutrition.jpg, I imagine you won't be getting any reply from other admins either. russavia (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I am requesting that you apologise like a mature individual for maligning my policy-permitted notifications as illegal "canvassing". Is it too much that I ask that someone who has been chosen by the community here as mature and responsible enough for greater power demonstrate this? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Only a note: I left that message in the file talk page. Béria Lima msg 13:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Beria. Now that the file is indefinitely protected, it removes the need for a preventative block to stop disruption with it being unprotected. And placing all on notice that the file will be deleted on 1 January unless copyright issues are sorted out, is going to have the forced effect of what I was trying to get them to do on a voluntary basis -- that being to forget about off-Common issues and work together on Commons, in order to prevent its possible deletion. When a carrot doesn't work, sometimes a stick is needed. Beria, I think that this could be safely closed off now? russavia (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC

"The edit history of the file shows that The Last Angry Man, Jo0doe, Volunteer Marek and Lothar von Richthofen have all acted disruptively since it was unprotected.". This is nonsense. Here is what's going on:

  • The protagonist. You have 1 (as in ONE, uno, ein) editor, Jo0doe, who is acting disruptively both on the image and the talk page, who is banned from several other Wikiprojects for EXACTLY the same behavior (so yes, it's relevant), who simply does not listen to others, lies about sources or what's in them, and who's been doing this for the past two years or so.
  • Others. Then you have like 6 or 7 editors who are simply reverting this guys disruptive (and false) edits to the image description. There's no "edit warring" nor is there any "disruptive editing" by these editors. When somebody continues to insert unsupported false information (information that they themselves found sources which showed why it was wrong) into an article that's what happens. And yes, most of these 6 or 7 editors HAVE discussed this on the talk page of the image and HAVE provided information about the image - but if you know anything about Jo0do then you know that discussion with him is not exactly productive. You can say "red blue and yellow are primary colors" and he will come back to you with a color wheel [26] and say "no they're not". You can say "Sao Paulo is not the capital of Brazil" and he'll come back to you with a map and claim that it is. While some of the people involved have had run ins with Jo0doe before, some are pretty much uninvolved.

In other words, this isn't a case of edit warring except by one party (who has a long history of disruptive editing here and elsewhere). Now, Russavia has managed to stand things on their head by attacking others, and Lothar in particular.

  • Russavia came to the article shortly after I made an edit to it. In case somebody's missing the background, Russavia and I are banned from interacting with each other on en-Wiki. Likewise Russavia is currently engaged in disputes/arbitration requests/other nasty stuff against some of the other people who've made edits to this image (TLAM, Galassi). He also has had numerous run ins on en wiki with some of the others here, in particular Lothar. So he showed up, used the clearly disruptive Jo0doe as his foil simply to carry on his battlegrounds and wars from en-wiki where he's been slapped up with sanctions and numerous blocks for this kind of behavior.

Russavia can play innocent and talk all he wants about how he's "just being an admin" but the truth of the matter is that he jumped into this with both feet because he has a grudge against a number of editors involved, which he is prevented from pursuing on en-wiki due to the sanctions he's under. The fact that he is now misrepresenting the situation, putting regular and constructive editors on the same level as Jo0doe, and attacking people just illustrates this.

I believe that at his RfA here Russavia promised that he would not be bringing his wars and grudges from en-wiki over to Commons, and that was the reason why some people could support him. Yet here he is doing exactly that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd expect that any admin, not only Russavia, would frown upon the situation with the editing history of that file (and this edit by Beria supports it). The issue is rather complex, and when I first glanced at the most recent editing history of the article and its talk, I thought it looked like an edit war without proper discussion. Since you have convinced me regarding the authenticity of the image being supported by an RS, now I understand the motives behind reverting Jo0doe better. But still I don't know whether the key argument which convinced me was presented to Jo0doe. And I'm not sure that the right way to solve the problem was all those reverts instead of putting more effort into discussion or seeking admin/community intervention at an earlier phase. Greyhood (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk of blocking many good faith editors when just one is causing massive disruption is stupid. I have written to the Vatican to see if they have any information on the cardinals collection. This my take time to track down who actually owns the rights to the image, I ask the file not be deleted until my search is completed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

issue. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Similar behavior on related files

And so now that "Child affected by malnutrition.jpg" has been protected, Jo0doe has started up the exact same behavior, with the exact same nonsense over at another file [29]. Seriously, how long will this go on and why do editors who've never done anything wrong on Commons have to put up with this endless game? Why are they being blamed here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And same behavior on yet another file [30].Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely protected File:2007fp.jpg whilst I discuss with some other admins the actions on that file, and see if blocks are needed. Lothar's reverts occurred directly after his posting this request, and Jo0doe's occurred after much of this discussion has occurred. Jo0doe's reverts raise most concern here with me.
Also, my protection of File:2007fp.jpg has been done so that undiscussed edit-warring is prevented as it has occurred on other files. If File:2007fp.jpg is a Holodomor hoax photos as Jo0doe proposes, I am somewhat inclined to delete the file as a copyright violation, because it can't be a Ukrainian famine hoax photos (instead being Russian hoax photos), yet still be {{PD-Ukraine}}.
In regards to File:Famine_victim_boy_1922.jpg, I have closed the discussion on that one and deleted it as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Famine victim boy 1922.jpg - it is a clear copyvio as it has unknown copyright status. We don't host files without concrete sourcing and copyright status on Commons as per COM:PRP.
Also in regards to Jo0doe, I am beginning to understand that English is likely not a language that he is especially proficient in, and this may be affecting the ability to understand warnings and community concerns, and could also be why he sometimes (it appears to me anyway) has trouble articulating himself precisely in discussions; precision is often needed in such things, and there is no requirement that discussion on Commons is required to take place in English; Jo0doe, I want to know the following from you. Is English your native language? If not, what is?
I raise language proficiency because Jo0doe is using the talk page here, and I have again had it independently verified that his rough translation is correct. If by allowing editors to participate in a language that they are proficient it, may allow them to be able to better articulate what they are trying to get across. However, information would need to be precise, not just the likes of "it's in this film", or "in this book". Exact page numbers, quotes or timeframe (in films) would need to be provided so that editors can verify what they are saying.
If there is a language issue here, perhaps we can organise (as Commons allows for), for editors to participate in discussions in which they are proficient, and use our multi-lingual base in order to get points across to other editors who are involved, and vice versa.
In regards to overall behaviour by Jo0doe since the beginning of this thread, I am getting somewhat inclined to give a one-week block for not listening to warnings that have very clearly been given to him, and for this revert on the file I've now locked.
I'd appreciated admin comment here. russavia (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have discussed this with other admins, and after perusing the evidence that others have shown, and after perusing my comments, it was decided that my suggested one-week block of Jo0doe would be inappropriate. I was initially going to suggest that Jo0doe be blocked for two weeks, but given that he is obviously trying to act in good faith as shown by his use of talk pages, a one-week block would suffice for the undiscussed revert. User:Beria has proceeded to act in her capacity as an admin, and has blocked Jo0doe for one day. russavia (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Jo0doe's native language is Russian, as far as I can tell. The fact that he was booted from ru-wiki for such POV-wars muddies attempts to view his actions as good-faithed. Shortly before he was blocked there, he left a message on his userpage declaring that he had decided to stop participating in the project indefinitely and suggested that users direct future messages to his en-wiki talkpage. Twelve hours later, Yaroslav Banter, the blocking admin on ru-wiki, placed an indef-blocked notice on the page. J's command of English is nowhere near fluent, but he clearly knows enough to feel confident in setting up shop on an English-language site. I don't think the claim that he does not understand warnings can be reasonably made, given his history. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)