Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/B· COM:AN/P

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 

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 legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
Other
[new section]

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.

Archives
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, 51, 52, 53
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
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, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)


Note

  • For page protection requests, please state protection type, file name, and proposed protection time span. See also: Protection Policy.
  • Before proposing a user be blocked, please familiarize yourself with the Commons' Blocking Policy.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/B|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Discussion on Meta from EChastain[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • If Mattise was honest with the community about their identity, rather than socking to evade bans, then there's scope for redemption. But this continued socking to evade bans should be treated harshly by the community on all projects. It's fraud and dishonest to you and me. An analogy (which isn't perfect): but the excuses here are like someone who was in prison for a serious crime escaping, and living under a false identity, and when they get found out they claim "but I haven't murdered anyone/stolen/defrauded/ect recently, I'm just serving burgers and minding my own business". It doesn't work like that. I appreciate some people don't handle their ban very well, but that, frankly, is their problem. They need to find a different hobby. There will always be users who appear productive and useful for a while and then become unpleasant to the degree the community expels them. We don't just let them back because they've successfully socked and uploaded some images without being unpleasant yet. Being accepted again by the community starts with being honest to that community. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • First, if you think it would be better for them to admit they are Matisse, if they even are which I am not even sure about, you are gravelly mistaken. That would be a lightning rod for drama. I can't speak for everyone and you clearly don't agree but personally, I would rather they just keep it to themselves and continue to be an asset. If they admitted it was them it would cause an uproar in ENWP and here and even if we agreed to unblock them as Matisse they would be followed around and hounded and every edit scrutinized looking for a reason to block them with shouts of I told you so. Secondly you are still holding onto the assumption its even them which still hasn't been proven and your hyperbole about murder and theft are hyperbolic and silly. Its a website man, not a felony or a violation of Christian values according to the ten commandments. I'll be honest with you, you are clearly stuck with the mentality that the people who decide these bans and blocks are infallible and once its decided it must be true. I can tell you they are not infallible, that the system can be and has been manipulated and it costs the projects good editors. I can speak on that from personal, ongoing experience. And speaking from that experience there have been positives. I have learned about IRC and other projects and met other editors who edit here and on other wiki's that had similar experiences as I did at ENWP. So its not a me or them problem problem, its an ENWP culture of abuse problem. Reguyla (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      @Colin: If there was clarity around Mattisse's block that may be okay, however, there isn't. It is a wholesome mess. There was no community decision made here, just one made by an admin with an approach that tended towards chaotic. I want to work with people who wish to edit productively, and for the betterment of open access, and in a collaborative workspace. In all my xwiki work I see screw-ups of people and situations, and I see people who stuff-up probably know it, but the individual hubris and that collective hubris of the community turns the situation into an unfortunate pissing competition. We should allow for a cool-off period, and look to provide a supportive environment for good editing. We all have our flaws, and each of us is less than perfect, so we admit it, move on, find our niche, edit well and enjoy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • We all have flaws. And we should have means for redemption. But letting people in simply because they are a clever sockpuppet isn't the answer. I don't think the bans and blocks on WP are "infallible" but they are the outcome of a community process that involves a heck of a lot of input and volunteer time -- a process that is completely absent on Commons. Reguyla thinks we should ignore that and treat WP blocks/bans with suspicion -- which is entirely coloured by their beliefs and experience. Reguyla suggests that if Mattisse was honest with the community, it would be a "lightning rod for drama". Well, frankly, we don't need users who are a "lightning rod for drama". No matter how much of a DIVA they are, nobody is that precious. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm not suggesting it, its a fact that it would turn into a big show. You are right though and I agree completely, we don't need that much of a lightning rod for drama which is exactly why if it is Matisse its better we don't know and let this person edit. This has already become far bigger of a deal than it should be. You still have yet to provide any proof its Matisse, no links, no comparisons and anyone who reads the 2 SPI's on ENWP can clearly see bias, speculation, insinuation and a glorious absence or anything resembling proof. So I say again, if you have some proof please present it, otherwise I think we have spent enough time on this subject. Reguyla (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Holy cow! @Billinghurst: or any other sysop: Please unblock this user. We are binding more time here than it is really worth. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't unblock where I have expressed an opinion. I have asked the checkusers to review the case, and CU if necessary, and work out which way to go. That is why they earn the big bucks. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This "user" was not blocked due to an en.Wiki ban. They were blocked for continuing to stalk me as they did on Wikipedia for several months: ([1]). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes they were blocked for that and I agree with that block. What I do not agree with is indefinitely banning an editor with over 50, 000 edits on this project for gut feelings and accusations with no proof. Even the checkusers who reviewed it both here and on ENWP says there is no way a checkuser can verify this. Even at ENWP they said the same thing and in fact of the 3 people who made a comment there 2 of them stated that even if it were Matisse, which still has yet to be proven, its a waste of time and effort to keep chasing them around when they can and have, if this is them, proven they can create a new account any time they want. Good edits are good edits and I am tired of spending effort on looking for reasons to block editors who are doing good edits. People keep saying that if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck it must be a duck. You know what a duck tastes like and looks like when its cooked? Chicken! Reguyla (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
They might not deserve an indef for their actions to this point, but I predict that, if unblocked, they will continue these creepy stalking behaviors for which they were blocked. If not against me, against someone else. The EChastian account on Wikipedia was clearly for disruption and hounding only. They literally had the exact same experience at every single talk page they went to (I looked), where they bothered, disrupted, and generally wasted everybody's time with ridiculous suggestions and bad-faith insults and/or accusations. They've been repeating baseless socking accusations against me for more than 6 months now. This is obviously not a person who drops a grudge and moves on. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You might be right, if unblocked they might start again or they might start editing again or some combination of the two. Same could be said of anyone who is blocked. I would also note that the toxic editing environment of the English Wikipedia has a history of developing a perpetual cycle of abuse. The admins/community run around accusing each other and finding reasons to ban each other and often times it turns a good editor into a PITA. I am no exception to that statement. Oftentimes that PITA gives up even doing positive edits and turns into a vandal and treats the project like a game and they just start fucking with people. Again though I go back to the statements I have made before. No evidence has been provided, no links, only conjecture, speculation and guesses. I don't like guesses and as many know I am also very sensitive to editors getting screwed over. Banning someone who has done 50, 000 edits on this project with no proof other than guesses on ENWP is just plain stupid. If I spent the time I could devise a far more convincing argument that 2 admins on ENWP whom are married are actually sockpuppets of each other because they edit from the same IP, sometimes the same computer, comment in the same discussions and edit in the same areas. Sound absurd? So is banning someone when everyone agrees there is no evidence other than guesses. Reguyla (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Sockpuppets of Messina[edit]

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

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

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

Ceochap[edit]

Related:

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

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

Tamawashi[edit]

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

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

Mikhail1990[edit]

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

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

GabyEstrella[edit]

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

  • ✓ Done pervious blocks didn't help so I indeffed him/her. Natuur12 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach[edit]

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

  • ✓ Done protected the file. Solution: fork the file. Natuur12 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Azar73[edit]

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

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