Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
Administrator's assistance

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

(edit | watch)
User problems
(edit | watch)
Blocks and protections
(edit | watch)
(edit | watch)

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.

Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.

Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.

Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
Translate this page
Important discussion pages (index)
Gnome User Speech.svg


  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


I repeat here what I wrote in the village pump 5 days ago:

Parabolooidal (talk · contributions · Number of edits) seems to be well intentioned, but he keeps doing a big mess with categorization, removing right categories, putting redundant ones, creating duplicate categories and others with poor or wrong categorizations, etc. I contacted him the 8th of July and someone had already had done it the 30th June but it didn't solve the problem, which is aggravated by the fact that he changes a lot of photos

Some typical examples of wrong actions (which are worrying because are recurrent):

Duplicate categories (usually poorly categorized):

  1. Category:Langtang range <=> Category:Langtang
  2. Category:Gosainkunda Lake <=> Category:Gosainkunda Lake, Rasuwa
  3. Category:Big Bell <=> Category:Taleju Bell (Bhaktapur)
  4. Category:Bhaktapur Durbar Square <=> Category:Bhaktapur Darbar

In Category:Badrinath Temple, Bhaktapur removed Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Bhaktapur District and replaced it with generic Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal. --Stegop (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment from Parabolooidal

I'm using the tags supplied by the Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal with known IDs and categorizing image accordingly. See the following examples:

  • Big Bell {{Cultural Heritage Nepal|NP-BT-53}}
  • Badrinath Temple {{Cultural Heritage Nepal|NP-BT-122}}

I apologized to Stegop for my mistake on one day on which I confused "natural" and "cultural" and asked several times on my talk page for information on how to handle these ID tags, but he ignored my questions, just threatening to have me blocked. [1], [2], [3]

Stegop has taken the ID tags I had placed in categories when he changed the category names, putting them in categories he has chosen. If he had discussed the issue of ID's and how to handle them on my talk page, as I asked, then the issue could have been explained to me. Before I started placing the ID templates in image categories, they weren't being used for the upload Nepal images at all. Further, I found many wrongly categorized images, which I corrected and he must have agreed with as he did not change them.

Also I'm unclear if it is correct to change the name provided on the ID in a misleading way. For example am image with the template
English: Bhote Koshi River

{{Wiki Loves Earth Nepal|NP-SIN-04}} is on the image File:Rafting at Bhotekoshi River (10).JPG. But if you look at the bottom of this image, and look at categories this image is in, it looks like the category Category:Rafting on Bhote Kosi is in the category Category:Natural heritage sites in Nepal with known IDs, when there is no known ID specifically for these rafting images, only for the river Category:Bhote Kosi

Incidentally, in going through these images I found many mis-categorized images, so in any case, these need to be checked. Also, in Category:Langtang, I created some of the subcategories using the ID's. However, now with the ID tag moved, there are categories under that ID that don't belong there, so the ID banner for the category does not correctly reflect the subcategories that don't have ID's. For example, none of the images in Category:Langtang Lirung have any ID.

I'd appreciate any clarification on this. I also request that Stegop try to deal directly with me first in an informative manner, or point me to a forum where I can get the information I need regarding the IDs and categories, rather than reporting me, twice now, without attempting to discuss the specific issues first. Parabolooidal (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Maintaining categories is not easy on Commons. Mistake are going to happen, even very experienced user make them. I would like to ask Stegop to help Parabolooidal with his work. If run into problems please don't hesitate to contact any admin or experienced if you feel there is no time to waste. If the issue is not time sensitive, please ask here: Com:VP Thanks guys! :-)) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The problems go on and I am not the only one complaining (see the user's disc. page). How can one explain the obvious things like relevant categories should not be removed when one adds another one (like he did in many cases in Ghana) or many other recurrent mistakes? --Stegop (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg[edit]

The discussion around this flag catches my eye. At first it did not seem to be something special. Just the average dispute over the colors of a flag. However when I took a closer look I saw a lot more drama, a cleaned upload log and a blocked user. Of course this editwar is not okay but blocking one party is not working deescalating either. In my opinion all parties should have been blocked or none of them (which would have been the best solution imho) and this is what concerns me. There is absolutely no consensus to do history cleanups either. Non-admins cannot see what happened either. I believed that this discussion escalated because of the tone and I would like to hear some more visions about this case since what happened here is clearly wrong and should not happen again. Natuur12 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I informed Fastily and the persons who where involved in the eddit war. Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As I have explained many many times, there are no official sources available for the colour of the flag and photographs are inconclusive as they show various shades used (some show dark and some show light). However, the presidential seal and the flags of the PM, Government, Navy and Army all match the colours legislated for File:Flag of South Korea.svg. It is therefore a proper assumption that the Presidential Standard should also match, that the photos of flags which do not are probably a problem with manufacturing, and that the burden of proof should be on those who want the Presidential Standard to use a different colour to provide some proof that it is supposed to be different. Every time sources are provided to support the Presidential Standard being the same as all the others, they are ignored or excused away. The last time this was discussed, the two users involved were Shibo77 and Shyoon1. Shibo77 contradicted themselves during that discussion by saying it should be the same as the national flag even though they kept arguing for it to use the lighter shade of blue. Shyoon1 has also recently contradicted themselves, strongly claiming that the flag and the seal should be the same, but when confronted with consistent sources over many years of different presidents that the seal is dark blue, they excused it away by saying "ok that's dark blue, but that has no bearing on the flag". When confronted with sources that the flag has also been dark blue, that is explained away by saying "oh those are old flags from old presidents, my photos are current". I have asked several times for some sort of official source, and considering these users speak Korean natively I would expect it easier for them to attempt at finding an official source than I would have any success at, but that request keeps getting turned around and demanded of me instead. Based on all available evidence, everything lies heavily in the direction all of the South Korean government symbols using the same blue as legislated for the national flag.
This discussion escalated yes, but because of Shyoon1's refusal to stop reverting and discuss, and their irate responses when doing so. They were asked several times to stop reverting and would not, and they personally attacked an admin (multiple times) which is why their block is extended the way it was. There is not a doubt in my mind that 10k (a user with only 4 edits), Jjw (who hasn't edited since March), 콩가루 (who hasn't edited in 2 weeks) and Hym411 were requested to join in the discussion by Shyoon1 shortly after their block because they all did so within 2 hours of the blocking, making the impartiality of their views questionable. Fry1989 eh? 19:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
...this is official source (Republic of Korea Ministry of Government Legislation). Did you seriously see this source which many users posted? --Neoalpha (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not ignore my opinion. I uploaded one video 10 hours ago so the insistence that I didn't contribute in 2 weeks is wrong. Every can discuss about this so I think opinion and contribution is not related. Please admin source of Korean government Neoalpha showed above. --콩가루 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, I provided Korean Government's official link that image is supposed to be light blue. Why are you ignoring it? Revicomplaint? 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't ignored anything, nor have I said anyone's opinion should be ignored. What I have said is there are no official sources on the right shade of blue, I don't speak Korean but I have used various translators and none of them say 아청색 means "light blue" but simply "blue". I also said that considering this group of users (3 who have no recent edits) all came in to the discussion shortly after Shyoon1 was blocked I think it's pretty obvious why. Fry1989 eh? 03:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
10k, Jjw, 콩가루 are active user of korean wikipedia. How rude are you. ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 03:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not the Korean Wikipedia, and pointing out that users have not had recent edits here on Commons is not rude, it's simple fact. This is rude. Fry1989 eh? 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope, your comment has clear intent to disparage their opinion and that is nothing but personal attack. ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 03:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have not personally attacked anyone, none of us have (thankfully) except for Shyoon1 which is why they are currently blocked. You don't like what I have to say, but that does not make it a personal attack. You would be better served to avoid further accusing me of something I have not done and focus on discussing the matter of this image. Fry1989 eh? 03:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hym411: Is this [4] the link you've mentioned? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Revicomplaint? 03:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
And as I said about, the only proof it says "light blue" is your sayso, certainly I haven't found any translation of it meaning that. Fry1989 eh? 03:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Then, please bring written source that it is dark blue. (Regarding hanja, try googletranslation, or ask others.) Revicomplaint? 04:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have used five different translators and none have translated it as "light blue". Fry1989 eh? 05:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I asked two Korean speakers to have a peek and give their interpretation of what the document says. In the meantime: Com:mellow please. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the problem I mentioned above, every time I ask for something it automatically gets mirrored back to me. I asked for an official source on the colour, and I keep getting told "that's not my job, you find one". I have tried, I can't. What I have found is that the seal (which is essentially the same symbol) is consistently dark blue, that the flag has been dark blue in several examples even if not consistently, and that all the other South Korean government flags are also dark blue to match the national flag. The reasonable and prudent assumption is that the presidential flag should also be the same blue as the rest, unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary. Fry1989 eh? 05:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Please read File_talk:Presidential_Standard_of_the_Republic_of_Korea.svg#Color_of_the_flag as I and some users updated the official resources which are claiming the current color is not correct. So I still don't understand why they'd blocked just one user, one side of opinions. --Naturehead (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Shyoon1 was blocked because they made 5 reverts in under 4 days, with several irate demands attached, instead of discussing the matter and awaiting a consensus, even after several requests to stop reverting. It was done to protect the file from more edit warring as it was clear that they would not stop reverting to get their way. Their block was extended for personal attacks. Fry1989 eh? 18:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I researched some histories and found that you've requested him to stop reverting ONCE before the block, for the last 4 years. I think you should've tried to make a consensus with him even though he reverted it repeatedly. Because he showed you new evidences every time and tried make you understand with editing note. It sounds like 'It was done 4 years ago already'. Everything changes and you need to hear someone's unbending opinions when his/her new edit is far too long from the last edit war. --Naturehead (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Everything having to do with this happened in the last week, I have no clue what you are talking about 4 years. Shyoon1 refused to stop reverting the file, they were asked to stop, they continued, they brought this upon themselves. Fry1989 eh? 05:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Shyoon1 also said that we should disregard another user's opinion simply because of his nationality. That type of disgusting bigotry is not tolerated here. He then also had the audacity to groundlessly accuse Fastily of bigotry, simply because he blocked him. It's not hard to see why he was blocked. Illegitimate Barrister 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't count how many times I've been told "you're not from our country, so obviously you can't know as much as we do and your opinions don't matter", I would have quit Commons years ago. I have never once told another user that because they aren't Canadian, they can't know anything dealing with Canadian content on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 04:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why Shyoon1 should be unblocked, not only did they revert war (please remember COM:OVERWRITE applies in this case) but they also made disgraceful personal attacks. Bidgee (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fry1989, Naturehead, Hym411, Salamander724, 콩가루: @Neoalpha, Natuur12:

(c&p) from my talk page:

== In reply to your inquiry ==

Hi, I found myself lucky that I logged on to my account just at the right time, Haha. Okay, let me tell you about the colors there. You will notice that the first and the second picture are the basically the same, just the second one is a more zoomed-in version. Since it is a legal document, it contains some hanja and the colors are also described by it. Here we go,

  1. In the first picture, at the top left corner where it says 銀色(은색), means Silver. This word is also there at the bottom.
  2. Since it's the same one, let's go to the second picture. In the left, the word 雅靑色(아청색) is written vertically, however this word with this hanja does not exist in any of Korean dictionary. I think this supposed to mean 鴉靑色(아청색), which Korean dictionary describes as: darker than blue, but lighter than navy blue. I think this picture will help you to get some idea.
  3. In the same picture, you can see 金色(금색) in the middle bottom and top right corner. This is easy, this means Gold.

If you have further questions, feel free to ask me. :) Have a great day. - Nike787 (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That should be sufficient to end the discussion about the colors. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nike787, thank you for your comment. I would suggest adding it to the discussion at File talk:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg. Fry1989 eh? 21:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Good idea and ✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
wikt:ko:雅 says it is "clean, pure" - ask him to see this and ask to comment again. (of course, see history - I never edited) Revicomplaint? 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added a dissenting oppinion on the talk page. Simply, 雅靑 is differ from 鴉靑 and I found the government is officially using brighter color than existing version of the file. --Naturehead (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment simple solution is to have two copies of the standard, add the commentary and these links, and let the wikis decide which they want to use. Commons is not the arbiter of which is right, and should not be preventing the users from one version or the other.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Simple and impractical, don't pretend you don't know why. Not that it is of any consequence, if you had looked at the discussion on the talk page you would see that we are approaching a resolution. Fry1989 eh? 07:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


First data:

As far as I can see User:Shyoon1 never warned as he should be according to our Commons:Blocking policy. Not for the first block and not to the second block. So User:Shyoon1 should be unblocked.

secondly, It is more than clear that the first unbalanced block without warning bring to bad personal attack against Fastily. The personal attack was wrong behavior of Shyoon1. If you are frustrated from admin action there are ways to handle this. But after user:Fastily was attacked he become an involved admin and the best way to act was to bring the case to other uninvolved admin. Otherwise we have to established new project - COM:JAIL :-). Anyway, I also see that Fastily's action were just after notifications he received from User:Fry1989.

Admins actions in Commons based on policies and guidelines and also on the experience we achieve with the time. There is a certain way we handle canvassing and there is a way we handle with dispute maps and flags. User:Billinghurst tell us exactly the way how to handle with this kind of cases: simple solution is to have two copies of the standard, add the commentary and these links, and let the wikis decide which they want to use. Commons is not the arbiter of which is right, and should not be preventing the users from one version or the other. Instead of that we saw Admin pouring oil on the fire.

I'll say more than that. Admins are not gods on the Olympus. admins are only people that have tools to serve other users. they (we) have more restrictions and we have to be an example of how to behave and apply our policies and guidelines. We all the time have to remember that we are dealing with people's behind the nicknames. We have to explain our actions. We all the time have to prefer warning instead of block.

After this case I am not sure that User:Fastily fully comply after Commons policies and guidelines and the conventional solutions to problems that we achieve with the time. He "shot the gun too fast", he did not appropriately warn user before block, he did not fill that he have to explain his actions any time it's needed as he should do it this thread and her. Geagea (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not warned? Sure I'm not an admin, but I did warn them of two possible outcomes if they continue to revert the file and they chose to continue. As for the extension of the block, it's pretty obvious why that was garnished. This user made personal attacks and accusations of racism while ironically saying to another user "you're not from my country, how dare you involve yourself like you know anything" which is kinda racist, or at least very nationalistic. While Shyoon1 has been blocked, the other users involved in the discussion including myself appear to have neared a resolution, Shyoon1's presence if anything like their actions before the block would be disruptive to that. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fry1989 eh? 01:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to mention, for those who are such big fans of the idea, that the King David solution is hardly a solution at all. Fry1989 eh? 01:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest sockpuppet of serial copyright problem user Category:Sockpuppets of Over the Limit[edit]

Hi there. The latest sockpuppet in this long line of accounts is User:Hunter Pedigree. I've blocked the account on enwiki on the basis of identical behaviour. The latest image File:DiBiase dream street.jpg is a copyvio from as can be seen here. Can someone do the honors .....again ? - Peripitus (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disactivation of Central Notice[edit]


User:Tm continues to revert my changes to images related to the Mongol Empire, claiming vandalism.[edit]

Yesterday, I reverted the following three images back to previous versions of themselves due to historical inaccuracy. Before I reverted them, they were shown to be displaying the Korean peninsula as part of the Mongol Empire, which by all accounts was historically untrue. To explain further, the Goryeo Dynasty which occupied the Korean peninsula at the time was at best a vassal state, never annexed by the Mongol Empire at any point in its entire history. Cartographic convention is that vassal states are not to be included as part of the territory of any overlord country, rendering the versions of the maps that User:Tm reverted the images back to historically false. These are the three images in question:

User:Tm continues to edit war based on historically inaccurate claims and has even gone as far as calling my reversions "vandalism." To those of you who end up looking over this case, many thanks in advance for your consideration. Flamarial (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Flamarial: en:Mongol invasions of Korea seems to disagree with you. Considering that that article is well sourced and you haven't provided any sources to back up your claim, I'd have to say that "all accounts was historically untrue" is a dubious assertion. Regardless, you are both edit warring, and it needs to stop. The files have been restored to how they were before, and if you object to them, upload your version under a different name. See Commons:Overwriting existing files. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I was actually just reading that article a few minutes ago. Respectfully, I don't see where in that article it says that the Goryeo Dynasty was annexed by the Mongol Empire. In the very first paragraph, in fact, it states that "There were six major campaigns at tremendous cost to civilian lives throughout the Korean peninsula, ultimately resulting in Korea becoming a vassal state and compulsory ally of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty for approximately 80 years," which supports my claim. Vassal states and allies are not included in the territory of overlord countries on maps by widespread cartographic convention.
Other parts of the same article further support my claim that the Goryeo Dynasty was never annexed.
"Although they reached parts of the southern peninsula as well, the Mongols failed to capture Ganghwa Island, which was only a few miles from shore, and were repelled in Gwangju. The Mongol general there, Sartai (撒禮塔), was killed by the monk Kim Yun-hu (김윤후) amidst strong civilian resistance at the Battle of Cheoin near Yongin, forcing the Mongols to withdraw again."
"In 1238, Goryeo relented, and sued for peace. The Mongols withdrew, in exchange for Goryeo's agreement to send the Imperial Family as hostages."
"With the death of Güyük Khan in 1248, however, the Mongols withdrew again."
"The Mongols agreed to a cease fire in January 1254."
"When the Goryeo court sent the future king Wonjong as hostage to the Mongol court and promised to return to Kaegyong, the Mongols withdrew from Central Korea."
And one of the most relevant sentences from that article states the following:
"When the dictator Choe was murdered by the literati party, the peace treaty was concluded. The treaty permitted the maintenance of the sovereign power and traditional culture of Goryeo, implying that the Mongols gave up incorporating Goryeo under direct Mongolian control and were content to give Goryeo autonomy, but the king of Goryeo must marry a Mongolian princess and be subordinate to the Mongolian Khans."
I'd like to ask the moderators to please consider this information and to perhaps consider reverting the three aforementioned images back to the historically correct versions. Flamarial (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note to other admins ((Edit conflict)): I didn't pick up on it until I read some of the older edit summaries, but this has all the markings of a nationalist battleground issue. Historiographer's involvement (in the 2010 edit war in the middle file) puts this beyond a doubt for me, not that the edit summaries are not evidence enough. I've locked all three files for a week to let this cool down, but it might be a good idea to lock them permanently. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you beyond a doubt that there was a massive edit war between User:Historiographer and other Wikipedians. However, I would like to throw out the notion that the fact that there once was an edit war is irrelevant when it comes to selecting files based on historical accuracy. By reverting these images to their historically accurate states, I am not editing from the vantage point of a nationalist but rather as a scholar in East Asian history simply trying to correct an error on the Wikipedia Commons. For these files to be locked down permanently in their current state would be to lock in a historically wrong map plastered in multiple places on Wikipedia. I would urge you and other moderators to consider the history behind the Mongol Empire and its territory before making such a final decision. Flamarial (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jab7842 and strange machinations at Template talk:Speedydelete/en[edit]

For the second time, User:Jab7842 has modified Template talk:Speedydelete/en in a misleading way, and afterwards marked is as a “Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup” speedy, after which an admin deleted it. Prior to Jab7842’s edits, the talkpage was not a redirect and had proper real content (for a template talk page, anyway).

I have no idea what is going on and what is Jab7842 trying to achieve (also, cf. Commons:Requests for rights/Denied/Confirmed#Jab7842), but I don’t see any reason to delete a valid talk page with a fulfilled edit request (I don’t think those are commonly deleted), and I suspect some shady business might be involved somewhere, so I’m just mentioning it here and recommending to be cautious.

--Mormegil (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Do to his edits he seems not to be a new user and user is bocked for abusing multiple accounts on enwiki. Because i see only vandalism edits and one previous warning i have indef. blocked the account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Same editpattern: Special:Contributions/SLV100 (blocked atm), a sock? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)