Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/B · COM:AN/P

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks 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
10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
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.


Baxter91[edit]

Please block User:Baxter91 for repeated copyright violations. They've already had one file deleted, another is marked for copyvio, and I suspect the rest are also copyright violations, too. Gestrid (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


These are NOT violations! I am the owner of these photos and the person in them. I am new to Wikipedia and have spent 10 hours creating my page and my photos keep getting pulled down. Photos that I OWN. Instead of asking that I be blocked, I am asking for help to navigate this system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter91 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Baxter91 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Baxter91: One of the photos you uploaded (File:Sil Lai Abrams.jpg, now deleted) is a copyright violation of this photo. Another photo, File:Sil Lai Abrams2.jpg, has already been deleted as another copyright violation. Gestrid (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Baxter91: Please have a look at COM:LICENSE. Uploaded photos must have been photographed by yourself. Taking images from the net or other sources is not permitted. If a photographer gave you explicit permission to publish a photo under any of the terms allowed on here, this permission must be sent via OTRS. Please do not upload files that do not conform to those rules. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid, the photo that you deleted (File:Sil Lai Abrams.jpg is from my corporate website. I am the founder & CEO of Truth In Reality and that is my personal photograph that you deleted. I added it to the site. This is the link you cited as justification: this photo. Please check the About section. How can the photo be restored?

Additionally, the second pic that was deleted is also mine. File:Sil Lai Abrams2.jpg. That is a photograph I commissioned and I gave to Howard University (and any other media outlet that has used it, including Modern Woman magazine, for example) to use in the art materials for the Redefining HERstory Campus Social Action program that I did in conjunction with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter91 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Baxter91 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@gestrid I was just blocked??? How can this be done without giving me an opportunity to defend myself? Can my page be restored? Baxter91 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how you have come to own the copyright of a CNN video (File:Sil Lai Abrams.jpg). You do not own the copyright of a screenshot of work created and owned by a third party, such as CNN. Nick (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
(ECx2) @Baxter91: Please have a look at COM:LICENSE and COM:OTRS for the restoration process in this case. But keep in mind that you are legally responsible for all potential copyright violations. Also, you have not been blocked. But please refrain uploading further files that could be seen as copyright violations. Go through COM:OTRS first. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nick Fair enough. I didn't realize that was the case. My apologies re: screenshot of me on CNN. However, the other photo of me that was blocked twice IS mine. File:Sil Lai Abrams2.jpg. Baxter91 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau I have tried accessing my page Baxter91 but it is gone. The other pictures on my page are all mine. Owned. Taken by my camera. This is very frustrating as I am a public figure and many of the photographs in the public domain have been taken by me and uploaded to my personal websites or supplied to other sites that I work with. If the assumption is that any photo that is previously on another website is owned by someone else, I have no chance in using my own photos. Baxter91 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Srittau Thank you for the useful information. Baxter91 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC) @nick @gestrid @nick or anyone who receives this: When I click on my user page File:Baxter91 it says that page doesn't exist. I have been deleted somehow, and I can't find the page that I have been working on creating for the past 10 hours. Can someone help me find this? Baxter91 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I see why you're confused about your draft being deleted. First of all, it isn't deleted. Second, this website is Wikimedia Commons, a sister site to Wikipedia, where your draft, Draft:Sil Lai Abrams, is located. It's where many (though not all) of the images you see on Wikipedia are uploaded to so they can be used there. Gestrid (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, copyright policy is a little complex, we assume you will have read the introductory text presented to you when uploading works, if you've not read that material fully or found it confusing, we can assist.
The copyright in any image is owned by the photographer, that is, the person who pushes the button to take the photograph, and not, as is often (erroneously perceived) the owner of the camera. The only routine way any camera owner will own photographs of themselves is when they've used the self-timer function.
We're easily capable of dealing of such scenarios, all you need to do is get someone to take your photograph, and get them to e-mail us a declaration which states they're the photographer and that they took the photograph with your camera, and that they're happy to release their rights as the photographer. We do it dozens of times a day, through the COM:OTRS system.
Your draft is on Wikipedia right here Nick (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but since you appear to be trying to do it: To use the ping function, all you need to do is type {{ping|someone's username}}, including the curly braces. For example, typing {{ping|Gestrid}} will appear as "@Gestrid:" when you save the page and will notify me that I have a new message here. If the user that's being pinged has their email notifications setup correctly, they also get an email notification about the ping. Gestrid (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Baxter91: One thing I would point out as an observer is that since you've had quite a lot of difficulty uploading these files, at least you know without doubt that Wikimedia Commons is very serious about protecting copyright holders. Whether you're the rightful copyright holder or not, you can see that your images are safe here, and that we take copyright very seriously. Have a good night. lNeverCry 10:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Someone's gestrid:, @Someone's nick: @Someone's INeverCry:. Your assistance is appreciated. Okay, here goes a few more questions:

1. If I give some stranger my phone and ask them to take my picture on my phone when I am out somewhere, how can I follow these guidelines to get their permission to use my photo? This is obviously not always possible, since there are many times when I am out at an event or with a group of people and a stranger holds my phone at my request, snaps my pic, then I never see them again. By law, this makes them the copyright holder of my image? I can never get the contact info for a kind stranger at an event who snapped a pic of me at my request on my phone, which would enable Wiki to get an email from them saying they release the image.

2. My modeling composite card has been flagged (for some reason). I don't remember who took the photo, the agency is out of business for over 10 years, the photo is 22 or 23 years old, and I paid for the production of the card - therefore I own it. If it is my legal responsibility to assume liability for the use of a photo, I am willing to do that. Can you please explain how you have handled situations such as these in the past by well-known fashion models who have wiki pages that use old tear sheets in their profile?

3. I have another old photograph (modeling) I was going to use instead if the composite card is deleted. The photographer took the photos, is generally a flaky person all around, I paid for the photos, they are over 20 years old. I have tried reaching out to him over the years, but since my sister died we have drifted apart. He doesn't answer his phone or email EVER, and it is 99.9% certain he will never send an email saying he gives me the rights. In the fashion industry, there are two ways that ownership is determined for a photo. If a model pays for the shoot, the images (which back then were shot on film that was developed into slides that you could view with a loop on a lightbox that had a white surrounding paper holder) would have NO copyright stamp. It was understood that you could use the photos as you saw fit, and the only ask (which still exists today as I still have my photo taken by professional photographers) is that IF the photo is ever used in a magazine that you ask said magazine to give them photo credit. In the event that you did what was called a "test shoot" where an exchange in services occurred - you donate your time and image for the photographer to use and DO NOT pay them for their time in exchange for giving them the rights to the photograph. When they gave you copies of the slides they would be marked with a copyright symbol stating the photographer was the copyright holder. Additionally, they have you sign a waiver stating their ownership of the image and you can only use them for personal purposes such as in your portfolio and composite card. If anyone who saw the image wanted to use it, you would direct them to the photographer, who would either sell the rights to the image to the person. All of this is to say is that these images are mine as I paid for them.

4. I have a trademark attorney that I use for my work with Truth In Reality. If she sends an email stating that I am fully aware of the risks of using these photos (which are mine, LOL), can you allow my personal photos to be used?

5. Last, but certainly not least, I have been barred from uploading any additional photographs to Wikicommons. Can one of you lift that ban. Given this experience around copyrights, the last thing I am doing is uploading a screen shot from a tv or any other type of photo that is not expressly mine. Thank you very much in advance for your help in this matter. I really just need to upload one more photo (for my main profile image) and then submit the article for approval. Baxter91 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. @Someone's gestrid:, @Someone's nick: @Someone's INeverCry:Thank you for volunteering your time to protect the rights of people and copyrights. I can't say that I would have the patience to do this, but realize how important a role all of you play in ensuring that abuse doesn't occur on here, or when it does, that it is addressed swiftly and prudently. It makes my life a little more temporarily stressful, but ultimately is for the greater good. Baxter91 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Baxter91: to ping someone, please remove the someone part. Not: {{ping|someone's INeverCry}} but: {{ping|INeverCry}}
1) If the stranger tells you her/his name, the copyright would expire 70 years after the death of author, not the camera owner. If the author's name (photographer) is unknown, it would expire 120 years after creation. So, yes. Your equipment and not yours to own. Would be the same if I lend you a chisel and you create a statue with it. Why should I get anything out of your work? Besides a dull chisel? :)
2) No, you don't own the intellectual rights. It's just orphaned. Now it's getting interesting. General rule: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
3) Same as above. The photographer can be flaky as phylo, doesn't make any difference. Another real life sample: Buying a magazine doesn't give you the intellectual rights to the contents, nor do you own the design of your car.
4) No, because a trademark attorney will tell you in way better detail the same story. You can't (re)license anything you don't own.
5) As far as I can see, you are not barred from uploading. Please use caution: Is it REALLY yours? Can you present solid evidence? A flaky photographer doesn't cut it. Just a small warning: Ignoring advise, making false statements, uploading unfree media will result in your account being blocked. Not saying you do. I replied to the OTRS-ticket today. Good luck with your draft and enwiki! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Thanks so much for taking the time to explain, and for the well wishes. Baxter91 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Block of Tuvalkin[edit]

I've placed a 1-week block on the account of Tuvalkin. In this diff [1] he makes an open and undisguised accusation that Ruthven is a racist because of a mass DR filed against a blocked sock account. This is disgusting. If there was anything to the accusation, it would be concerning. But Ruthven is an advanced Spanish speaker, so the accusation by Tuvalkin that Ruthven quote "doesn't want brown people here in Commons" is sudden and disturbing. Accusations of racism are very serious and nobody should get away with openly making this kind of attack on any user without serious evidence to back up the accusation. I've told Tuvalkin that he can be unblocked immediately if he withdraws that accusation and expressly apologizes to Ruthven. I would also point out that Ruthven's RFA, which Tuvalkin is the only opposer of, is currently running at 23 supports 1 oppose, so my block has nothing to do with that lone oppose vote. lNeverCry 12:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I will start by saying that this is a completely unacceptable comment by Tuvalkin, and their behaviour in recent weeks has deteriorated, there is now a definite and downhill pattern of behaviour. A block is entirely warranted and I think, after the previous incident some two months ago (re mental illness, see [2]) where I (and some others in the community) gave Tuvalkin the benefit of the doubt, this time the block should remain for at least the duration set (1 week).
However, and unfortunately there is a however. INeverCry should not have been the person to place this block, this should have been reported and an uninvolved administrator with no possible conflict of interest left to place the block. The conflict of interest is, as noted by INC, the RfA nomination made by INC and subsequent oppose vote placed by Tuvalkin. Nick (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this block as soon as it happened and reviewed the evidence. Tuvalkin's comments were unacceptable, so I have no challenge to make on the block itself. As with Nick, it's best to avoid potential for later claims of being involved. These situations have occurred a few times where the absence of a policy with regard to never using sysop powers when potentially involved has resulted in an administrator taking action, then leaving a note on AN to cover themselves, rather than informing an independent administrator.
It may be a healthy improvement if Administrators were explicitly to include "They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved" as per en:Wikipedia:Administrators, rather than leaving this to a common understanding of norms, which will always be debatable. -- (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Nick's comments, and the comment at the RFA is a continuation of Tuvalkin's them-and-us battleground mentality which is harmful. However, I fail to see what the policy change suggestion by Fae of "must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved" has to do with this, as I don't see INC "gaining an advantage" -- merely that it is possible he would be "inclined to think negatively of" someone he is in dispute with, and thus not deal with the issue as neutrally as an uninvolved admin. There may well be merit in improving admin guidelines along those suggested, but that's a discussion for another time/forum. -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If there can be seen a conflict of interest in my being the blocking admin, I would suggest that @Nick: or any other admin change the block so that he's the blocking admin, and consider the above my report here to AN.

My sole interest is protecting a Commons user from false allegations of racism which is a serious problem. I don't really care if Ruthven passes the RFA or not; defending him or her from false allegations of racism and making it known that such allegations made against Commons editors with no evidence to substantiate them is much more important than any RFA. I've always been a bitter opponent of any kind of racism, sexism, homophobia/anti-LGBT, religious prejudice, ethnic and nationalistic prejudice, and any other form of cowardly hate. That kind of thing doesn't fly here at Commons, and it's definitely not something we can deal with lightly, whether we're speaking of actual incidents of prejudice, or accusations of such prejudice. As Nick says above, this is a deterioration of Tuvalkin's behavior. I would like to see through this discussion if there is any consensus for a longer block, or for a restriction prohibiting Tuvalkin from participating at COM:DR/COM:RFA if this is the kind of ugly behavior he's going to decend into at these venues. lNeverCry 23:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done reblocking. widely endorsed block. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking again at the long and high wall of pure rubbish Tuvalkin's put up at his talk to try and wikilawyer his way around this, I have to say in all honesty and with complete calmness that I think Commons would be better off if Tuvalkin was banned from editing here. I still remember the Tuvalkin I worked with back in 2010/2011, when he was focused on BSicons. Then in 2012 he started working on DRs and being rude quite often. This has gotten worse over time. Now recently we get this racism garbage. I think Tuvalkin is a net negative and will chase good editors away from Commons until we finally say enough is enough and do what's right for the community. lNeverCry 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with INC. This anti-deletionist battleground mentality has got to the point where falsely accusing people of racism is the basis of a keep vote. Time for an indefinite block. Perhaps, at some future point, Tuvalkin might recalibrate his attitude, but for now this attitude problem is a "net negative" as INC says. -- Colin (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indef - If Tuválkin believes Ruthven is a racist they know what to do and it certainly isn't to go around various DRs or whatever throwing around accusations, The editor clearly has a BATTLEGROUND attitude and warnings & short blocks don't achieve anything (their blocklog proves my point!) so IMHO they should be blocked per NOTHERE with talkpage access revoked, I'm usually all for second chances but this editor has had 7 lives and there's no sign of them changing their attitude anytime soon, It's about time something was done and that time is now. –Davey2010Talk 03:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support indef — I would be happy not to have to read this name anywhere on Commons anymore, as well as their highly dispensable comments. --A.Savin 06:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I oppose using indefs as if they were bans, they are not. A ban is inappropriate based on this event. Tuvalkin used some angry language that they should not have done, and a block was appropriate and we can consider a series of escalating blocks if Tuvalkin's behaviour continues once this block expires.

All contributors must be supported by understandable procedures if they feel there is a case to make for a pattern of actions from an account, which appears to be deliberately disruptive on racist grounds, both in line with Commons policies, the wmf:Terms of use or wmf:Non discrimination policy. Any contributor should be free to raise concerns of this type without fear of censorship or action simply for whistle blowing. Tuvalkin's correct process should have been to step away from the locus of the incident (the DR) and instead of engaging in direct argument, raised the evidence of the pattern they were concerned about on the AN noticeboard, or by approaching an administrator they trusted. What needs to be advised and repeated, is that complaints must be strongly supported by evidence, and the evidence has to be convincing enough to speak for itself. Had this been done, then an examining administrator would probably have advised that what Tuvalkin was seeing as a suspect pattern of deletions of certain races of people, was in fact a process of raising deletions for uploads by dubious sock accounts, which coincidentally were all these types of photographs (I'm basing this viewpoint on looking through some of the DRs raised by Ruthven in the last 5 months). The pattern was worth looking at, as the repeated deletion request was unusual, but Tuvalkin should have paid more attention to the nomination, which did highlight the new evidence of sockpuppeting.

It should never be the case that fear of using imprecise language to express these concerns, stops them from ever being raised. This is doubly true on Commons where users are not expected or required to have good English language skills. The responsibility is the community's to ensure sufficiently open and safe spaces exist, for users with legitimate concerns to raise them. I have emphasised "open" as it would be a serious mistake for complaints of apparent acts of racism, homophobia or misogyny to only ever be possible to discuss on IRC or by private closed channels unless the incident is serious enough to require legal action.

Lastly, those commenting here who have never been targets of irrational hatred due to their race, religion, sex or sexuality; you are lucky to live at a time and place where this is possible. Those of us that have experienced these things in our lives have good reason to value systems of laws that offer protection and understand that free speech includes the right to lobby against hateful speech or hateful action. If you think I'm a poor reference, then I suggest you consider Jee's comment on Tuvalkin's user talk page. -- (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a pretty soft reading of the facts in Tuvalkin's favor. Accusations of Racism are very serious. Any kind of discrimination (which I myself have suffered due to disability) is something that can never be taken lightly. Tuvalkin in the linked deletion requests states without any doubt that Ruthven "doesn't want brown people on Commons" and that "he should just admit it".

No editor of Commons should be either the victim of discrimination or accusations of racism that are untrue. The term above "imprecise language" sounds like I'm listening to some politician from the US trying to explain their way out of making some ignorant racist statement.

Tuvalkin can't just say it was really about sockpuppetry and related sock accounts, and that his blatant accusation of racism (made in a very suggestive way, rather than a straight-forward accusation) was just an oversight that should be overlooked. Ruthven is not a racist. Any suggestion that such is the case should be backed up by clear evidence. Tuvalkin has produced none. Of all people, , who I respect very much, knows that I don't tolerate any kind of racism, homophobia or any discrimination. Back when Fæ uploaded his 500,000th edit as a photo celebrating his pride as an LGBT man, I had to defend him from Badmachine and several other people who attacked him due to his openly being LGBT. These attacks were quickly fought off, and Fæ got to celebrate a special day for him the way he deserved to.

I felt good that I was able to come to his defense and I would do the same for any Commons user. I've seen serious racist/anti-religious attacks like [3] this one made by Grawp. By accusing Ruthven of racist activity, Tuvalkin is making a much more serious accusation than he perhaps realizes. Ruthven doesn't deserve to be victimized in this way. While I realize that Tuvalkin is an experienced and productive user, and I would prefer to see him retract his accusations and apologize for them, rather than be blocked for them, this kind of behavior can't be allowed to pass without serious consequences

As I said, this really surprised me. I've seen Tuvalkin make plenty of comments that have been snarky, rude, and insulting, I've never seen him make serious accusations as he did here. If he were to say that he read the situation wrong and that he apologizes sincerely for the accusations, that would be the best outcome we could have.

If he lets these accusations stand as they are, he should either present evidence to prove his accusations, or, if he's unable to do so, he should be indefinitely banned/blocked from Commons. Otherwise we, as the Commons community, are letting Ruthven down and not standing up for him 100% as we should be. A 1 week block is nowhere near an even punishment to Tuvalkin for making accusations of racism that he can't prove or substantiate. lNeverCry 14:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

INC, you're right if Tuvalkin is explicitly targeting Ruthven alone. But that comment looks to me like a generic attack against many s/he consider as "deletionists". I would like to here first, how s/he responds to my comment. I think we can forgive this time, if s/he acknowledge the mistake. Moreover, Christmas is coming! Jee 15:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I have to respectfully disagree with you here. If you look at this comment by Tuvalkin, you'll see that Tuvalkin even makes a point of saying he's referring directly to Ruthven. Tuvalkin says, and I quote "Look, you (and I mean Ruthven in this discussion and many other users in other DRs) don’t want brown people in Commons?< I get that, as I’ve seen so many attempted deletions with thinly veiled arguments. But at least make a new argument and admit it". Ruthven doesn't deserve to have his good name ran through the mud, and, since any accusation like this is obviously going to upset the accused, he doesn't deserve that upset and frustration at being falsely accused. Ruthven is and always has been a great editor, and making false accusations against him are serious. Tuvalkin has to know that he's not just going to get a slap on the wrist when he does things like this. lNeverCry 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
INC, I agree with you, "Ruthven doesn't deserve to have his good name ran through the mud." I remember a case when somebody said about one of my colleague that he is not qualified to close a deletion request, considering his real-life profession/education. I protested and the user replied it was not his intention and we were happy to accept that statement and move on. So what I'm saying is, we need to evaluate the intention than merely what was said. We need to give some time for Tuvalkin towxplain his/her stand. Yesterday I saw another sarcastic comment of Tuvalkin here. S/he must stop this behavior or find the exit door. But I don't see an immediate need to dismiss him with an indefinite ban/block. Note that I didn't oppose this block; only opposing a stronger, further action. You can see on his/her talk page that I well explained that Commons has no history of discouraging brown people or such media. Yes; I belongs to them and never experienced a discrimination. Discrimination is neither acceptable; nor the use of such a property (ethnicity here) to get advantage in a discussion (as Tuvalkin did here). But the solution is to dismiss such attempts with well founded reply; not the person himself. Jee 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
INeverCry, I'm not going to respond to the specifics here, as I am uncomfortable with opening up old personal cases of past harassment that are unrelated to this incident. I suggest you take the same path. Thanks -- (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@: I can understand if you don't want to rehash specifics. I won't do so. My point in bringing that old incident up here is this: anti-LGBT haters tried to attack you on a special day for you, and I was able to help fight off that effort. I like to remember that I was able to help protect you from homophobic, disgusting prejudice. I remember how that felt, and it was very rewarding. It was one of my best moments here. I feel the same way about Ruthven. I don't intend to stand by while he gets attacked. The other element regarding you and I, and the gay pride photo, is that for me it's much better to think of that time than to think of the stupid and ridiculous block I put on your account later. One is uplifting, the other is something I did without giving it a thought and which I wish I hadn't done, and am still regretful and embarrassed about. lNeverCry 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no parallel to be drawn between Tuvalkin's angry words and the case you mention. It is inappropriate to reference an old and exceptionally hateful extreme case of personal attacks against me, for what appears to be a rhetorical argument. Please address the case in hand, rather using me as a tangent.
The Commons community needs to provide systems to moderate those that create a hostile environment for others. For the same reasons the Commons community needs to ensure that any contributor can bring forward complaints against patterns of actions that appear to be hostile to any minority group. Tuvalkin has been blocked for a week and can be advised on correct procedures for how to raise complaints of this type in the future without being perceived as attacking other users.
It is far too common a pattern on Wikimedia projects that those with complaints about apparent racism, religious prejudice, homophobia and misogyny are rapidly marginalized, blocked or banned for harassing other users, in preference to educating the contributor on how best to raise complaints in a way that will be taken seriously and investigated by someone independent of the immediate issue. Tuvalkin was wrong for their specific actions, they are not wrong to waive a red flag for investigation. Even if you believe Tuvalkin was doing this for bad reasons, a sensibly run community investigation sets a good example for other contributors to raise concerns in a mellow way.
Unfortunately, anyone can see from the way I have been treated in a hostile and personal manner in this discussion, which seems intended to introduce pointless tangential argument and put me off from putting a logical case that helps understand Tuvalkin's behaviour, shows that the community's approach to these issues is immature and is just as likely to attack the individual with a complaint rather than addressing underpinning issues of better governance and factual and policy based responses from administrators rather than knee-jerk emotive responses. -- (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@: Incredibly hateful? I blocked you with the rationale that you were a sockpuppet of Russavia. That's stupid and childish but hardly incredibly hateful. Please draw down on the dramatic victim language.I've never done anything to you that was "incredibly hateful".

I am drawing attention to the fact that my behavior toward you in blocking you was inappropriate, uncalled for, and is something I truly regret. I compared it with what I'm still very proud of which is that I was once able to defend you, and do the right thing. I'm comparing one side of my behavior with that of Tuvalkin; his attack on Ruthven was calculated and offensive. There was nothing innocent on Tuvalkin's side. I don't know why you're defending him so hard. Ruthven is the victim here not Tuvalkin. There was no misunderstanding. Tuvalkin is a highly intelligent individual. He made his attack on Ruthven for the same reason I put in place that fake block on you: I knew what would upset you and in this case Tuvalkin knew what to throw at Ruthven to get under his skin.

I mention my defense of you against Badmachine not because I've had a change of heart or that I consider you a friend. I haven't. I know just what kind of person you are. You're manipulative, you misrepresent incidents and the positions and stances of the people involved, and you always turn things around to where you're the victim and anyone else who disagrees with you is the devil himself. You say above "an old and exceptionally hateful extreme case of personal attacks against me". I accused you of socking for Russavia. Where is the "exceptionally hateful extreme case of personal attacks against you"? You just hope people won't look closer at what you say, or the whole house of cards falls right down.

You do the same thing when you respond to Colin. He's hasn't intimidated or harassed you at all. What he's really done is to tell it like it is, way to many times and in way to many cases. He's got you pegged down so you've got to try the old trick of discrediting him or pretending some horrible hate attacks have been made against you. But it's just like the accusation you make against me above. Once you really look at what Colin is saying about you and your pathological dishonesty, your positions and stories start to fall apart. It doesn't surprise me at all that you're defending Tuvalkin. Birds of a feather stick together.

There's no being friends with you Fae. You know very well that the worst thing I ever did was to block you simply as a sock of another editor. A block that nobody at all, not even one person ever believed. And yet in your world that becomes an " exceptionally hateful extreme case of personal attacks against me". People need to watch out. If you're defending Tuvalkin than he really deserves an indef block. lNeverCry 14:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I clearly was referring to the case of harassment that you introduced, not your incorrect block of my account. I neither mentioned your action, nor was referring to it. Please take time to re-read my post. There is no need to make personal comments, please do not do that. Thanks -- (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I certainly did misread this. The personal comments came from the misreading. Quite embarrassing and regrettable. My apologies. lNeverCry 10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If you claim Tuvalkin was "not wrong to waive a red flag for investigation", then please present the evidence that justifies calling fellow contributors here racist and please present the evidence of a problem with DRs of "brown people". I'm afraid that the fact Tuvalkin is blocked suggests the consensus does not agree with your interpretation. "Raising concerns" as a way to attack others is your modus operandi so no suprise you see you defend your friend Tuvalkin with the same falsehood.
You say there is a "common pattern" to "rapidly marginalize, block or ban" users who make complaints. I assume you mean genuine complaints raised in good faith and with the sound evidence you now state is required. Can you please list them for us to investigate and know the veracity of your serious allegation.
My comments (below) are not "tengential". It is most interesting that Tuvalkin was blocked for making a single false complaint of racism yet you made dozens of false allegations of homophobia, false complaints of being stalked, attacking with insults like "creep" and yet nothing happens, and you now have the temerity to lecture us all on correct proceedures and the need for strong evidence or the dangers of jumping to bad faith conclusions. It is long past time that Commons recognised your problem behaviour using these false allegations to attack people you dislike, and the harm this does to the project for those with genuine concerns about discrimination and such. I once again insist this Community stops being complicit in permitting Fae to use such bad faith allegations and defamatory comments as personal attacks. Tuvlakin's behaviour is remarkably similar to his friend Fae's behaviour and Fae's excluses of raising red flags for investigation is remarkably similar to his own excuses for making personal attacks. Both should be sitting together on the naughty step. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not replying to any one person. I offered Tuvalkin the opportunity to make a detailed report about their concerns of racism in Deletion Review requests, and this was the response I received [4]. I also suggested possible reasons for their perceptions but that too was rebuffed. Nick (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Nick. Wrt to Tuvalkin's responses, see en:Texas sharpshooter fallacy and similar. If one starts with the bad faith assumption that one's deletionist opponents are bad people, probably racist, then one will find patterns that appear to support this. This is so similar to previous bad faith allegations of homophobic bias at Featured Pictures and Pictures of the Day, based on a very poor understanding of statistics coupled with a huge dollop of bad faith. The problem isn't so much that people are generally not very good at spotting their statistical incompetences, and lack training in such, but the bad faith assumption that drives the allegations. COM:AGF says "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence". Futher, asside from any potential systemic problem at DR, to state, as Tuvalkin did, that a specific person "[doesn’t] want brown people in Commons" is quite a horrendous allegation and needs the most robust and daming evidence. Much like would be required to claim a specific person "censored" and voted "oppose" on an image because it was a gay subject or because it was by a gay photographer or because it was nominated by a gay user, rather than because it contained full frontal nudity with obvious genitalia, and was clearly incompetely focussed. We are absolutely required by policy to find good faith reasons for what we see in others actions, and only reject them when the evidence otherwise becomes overwhelming. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It is woefully incorrect to dismiss this as "Tuvalkin used some angry language". He clearly and repeatedly made an allegation of racism against one editor and added to this with allegations of systemic bias: "the epidemy of DRs disproportionally directed against photos of brown people". I'm flabbergasted that Fae of all editors, should get on his high horse to lecture the community on how to make allegations and the folly of jumping to incorrect conclusions based on inadequate evidence or misunderstanding. This is the editor who conducted a long-running campaign alleging the censorship of gay artworks, of suppressing an image nominated by a openly gay person, falsely claiming that there were no LGBT featured pictures and that this was due to a deeply unpleasant underlying cultural problem with those reviewing images, that the project was shaming LGBT contributors into the closet, that users were attacking the gay guy, that Picture of the Day has heteronomative bias, and that LGBT volunteers were having problems contributing. Fae lectures us that "What needs to be advised and repeated, is that complaints must be strongly supported by evidence, and the evidence has to be convincing enough to speak for itself." Ha! Is this hypocrisy or a change of heart. If the latter, I sincerely look forward to no further personal attacks coming from Fae made without the slightest evidence or basis in fact. -- Colin (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys, I just step in to clarify some stuff, as it is "my special day". I didn't wrote before on this topic because it's my policy not to feed the troll, and here it's clearly the case of an abusive user that accused without thinking nor even reading past user's history. I am sorry to disagree with you, Fæ, but we don't want to guarantee to such users the right to defend anything, even minorities, because it's clearly a way to express an aggressive behaviour, with no regard nor respect for the cause he's defending (BTW, the non-native english speaker here is me). No thinking, no reading, no showing proof of a general drift that Commons is taking toward racism, so the comment wasn't useful at all even for the community. Here the accusations of "racism" and "deletionism" were made without considering that 1) I was proposed as sysop by lNeverCry also because of active in COM:UDEL (opposite of deletionist, right?), 2) Tuvalkin here, instead of seeing a watermark and a possible copyviol, saw a colour of skin (thing that I didn't even thought of!), raising the question of who's obsessed with "races" and discrimination here. I feel that Wikimedia projects do not have to be the battleground for user's frustrations, which should be independent wrt helping the community growing showing its problems, even in a clumsy way.
As I'd rather not write on this topic on a public discussion page again, as there is a certain conflict of interest; I invite you to write me on my discussion page if you have questions or want some clarification. Thanks. PS: Ruthven is a man ;) --Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. As I highlighted, I did look at your contributions and found no issue, including the DR nomination being in good faith. Neither do I contest that the block on Tuvalkin was justified. -- (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undef. block. There is a time when we need to act, to preserve Commons working place from attacks and harassment. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "I am the colour of those who are persecuted." Alphonse de Lamartine (Toussaint Louverture, 1850). One also has to identify who are the persecuted and persecutors...and some times are easier than others. Therefore I don't oppose an increase of the block. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Personally I am not racist, and as for Ruthven, having known him for a while on it.wikipedia, I can testify that he has lot of flaws :-)) but he's not racist for sure.
    Nor I have hint of any racist or racial use of deletions on Commons, for this reason I am just curious to know why Tuvalkin finds a racist pattern in the RfDs.
    As partial discard to Tuvalkin, I must admit that years ago I accused an admin that refused to delete a demeaning flag of Italy to hold prejudices against the Italians, but with time I learnt that wherever we are tempted to see racism or prejudice often is bad judgment. He failed to delete the flag as he should have been doing, and I was wrong to suppose he had a prejudice towards Italians.
    Yet I don't know why Tuvalkin has gone into that downward spiral. The only suitable explanation for this behaviour pattern is that he's sick and tired of a long lasting relationship and is pushing the other to drop him rather than simply leave... It happens this way even in real life. :/ -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My 2 sentimos on the indef block proposal, I don't think an indef block is needed since not all Tuvalkin's contributions are bad. I don't know Tuvalkin much honestly, so I might be missing something. A one-year ban from DRs is enough. Poké95 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    I don't necessarily want to see Tuvalkin gone for good either. I've been working with him for a long time, and I know that he's an experienced and competent editor in many areas. But I don't want to see him poisoning Commons either. I doubt he would agree to a whole year away from DR, though that is a pretty good suggestion. lNeverCry 10:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Blocking a good-faith long-time contributor for one incident it's not the best sollution. Maybe a topic ban, with restriction of involving in any discussion on any page in "Commons" and "Commons_talk" namespaces, for one year, it's more appropriate. --XXN, 13:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    @XXN: This is far from being his first incident. have you looked at his block log? And that's just the shit he didn't get away with. lNeverCry 14:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    It's not about a specific topic ban but the necessity not to type and post in blindmode while angry. Tuvalkin can be a big pain in the ass, that's a fact. I do value his work in trains categories and PT related stuff. But he really needs to calm down a lot, at some point the damage is done and that's the end of it. I have seen that many times, users got third, fourth, [...] twelfth chances. Along the line the community loses interest and the indef block comes down and stays. It would be a pity tho. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Definitely not the first incident: [5]. I agree Tuvalkin has been a valuable contributor, and while I don't necessarily agree with an indef block, keeping him away from DR for a good long time seems an appropriate action. --Rrburke (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In case you haven't noticed, Tuvalkin have apologized 4 days ago on his talk page. I believe he is sincere, as he admitted his mistakes. He is a human. I would like to advise Tuvalkin to take a break from DRs for a week. There are a lot of things that can be done here on Commons, like photographing, participating at COM:FP, COM:QI, and COM:VI, making PNGs transparent, converting JPGs to PNG (or SVG, but don't forget to remove the noise and artifacts due to JPG compression), and lots more. I am not discouraging Tuvalkin from DRs, but encouraging to engage on happier tasks I stated above. I hope we can all move on from this, as there are a lot of things to do, like deleting never-ending copyvios, closing never-ending DRs, blocking and nuking never-ending socks, performing never-ending cleanup, taking photos of a subject in demand, and solving never-ending dramuh. To end, I Symbol support vote.svg Support an unblock for Tuvalkin (although it will expire today). What do you guys think? Poké95 01:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pathological dishonesty[edit]

Semi-protection request for File:Keep-calm-and-click-edit.svg[edit]

Seems to be an attraction for IPs: 27 August 2016, 2 September 2016, 26 October 2016, 2 December 2016. --SI 06:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Super block of Livio removed[edit]

I've removed it. If someone wants to put it back, you'll have to desysop me first. I'm tired of getting stonewalled. He's had 2 appeals, and both have gotten archived. He had a 1-week block. He was then blocked to order by a small gang on FPC. From 1 week he went to a 6-month block. I give Tuvalkin a 1 week block for racist bullshit, and he's off the hook within hours from now. Is that a fair deal? I don't think so. I know it isn't. There's my move. Have at me. lNeverCry 02:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • My message to Livio on Wikipedia:
    “Hi Livio. I just wanted to let you know I've removed your unfair block on Commons. I'm ready to lose my adminship for the principle of it. How can I, as an admin, see an unfair block; see a person appealing a block and being ignored, and just say nothing and do nothing? How can I be an admin and allow something I consider unfair to continue on without doing anything to change it? If I have to do that, then being an admin just isn't worth it to me. My heart has to be free from fear. Fear of losing adminship, fear of the people who blocked you, fear of anything. Why be on Commons, If I have to be afraid of what I do, and the normal ways of appeal are unfairly prescribed. Tuvalkin can say sorry, and his blocklog is way longer than yours, and people say: yeah give him another chance, he's a human being he makes mistakes. And what about you? You're a human being and deserve a second chance too. We'll see how it goes. If they desysop me again, I'll just do some regular stuff, and not worry about it. If you do get a second chance now, it's up to you what you do with it. Whatever you do is all up to you. You're a grown man, and it's all up to you. I just think you should have that chance after 3 months of being blocked. I did this for both of us. Take care.”
    I just wanted to add this here because I'll probably be asleep and unable to respond to anything until late tomorrow. I will keep Livio unblocked as long as I'm an admin and he doesn't re-offend. lNeverCry 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info To avoid confusion, this relates to account Livioandronico2013 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) -- (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record: Symbol keep vote.svg Agree --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington, I noticed in the previous discussion Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 19#User:Livioandronico2013 that you said " I won't oppose unblocking, as long as the blocking admin, in this case INC, agrees." In fact User:A.Savin was the blocking admin and this is very much a long running problem with INC unblocking Livio against community consensus and as part of a feud with A.Savin. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
In that case I redact my archived comment and renew my support. Yikes, gotta be careful whatcha archive here :-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry, you have my full Symbol support vote.svg Support - Jcb (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see

Livio was blocked by User:A.Savin and this block has previously been undone by User:INeverCry without attempting to gain Community consensus and while making personal attacks on the blocking admin. INC was forced to restore his block after clear community consensus that the block should not have been lifted and strong criticism of INC including the comment by User:Natuur12: "Don't get me wrong, I highly respect INC but unblocking against consensus while being involved is one of the most severe mistakes an admin can make. Forgivable, but still severe". Others involved in that discussion were Benh, Ikan Kekek, Jee, Code, The Photographer, Steinsplitter, Diliff, Jebulon, User:Daniel Case, Christian Ferrer, Elcobbola, User:Nick, and more. These people are described above as "a small gang on FPC" as though we are thugs? It is FPC where Livio caused problems and so FPC regulars who give their opinions.

Livio's appeals were not "stonewalled" (please look up the definition of that word). We had a discussion less than a month ago where there were several contributors and no consensus for unblocking. So this is yet another case where INC has unblocked Livio without attempting first to gain community consensus. If he knew his unblock would have consensus then why all the dramatics above about blackmailing the community with his admin bit. I see nothing to indicate that Livio has accepted what he did was wrong, rather I see him protest (along with INC) about the unfair admin who blocked him. This whole episode is contaminated with INC making personal attacks on A.Savin, and I have no doubt INC would have respected the block if it had been made by someone else who he respects.

We have here a clear case of misuse of tools. INC was clearly "unblocking against consensus": he knew he did not have consensus on 8th November and his comments above show he decided to unblock unilaterally and knowing he was misbehaving. Perhaps the community now does not care about Livio's block and would support it being lifted. If that was the case INC should have asked. And regardless, INC should not be the admin to lift it: he is involved and in dispute with the blocking admin. Above, Nick criticises INC for blocking Tuvalkin while involved, and here INC unblocks while involved and in full knowledge he did not have consensus. I suggest INC restores the block and follows the correct procedure for removing a contentious block: of gaining community consensus first.

Admins must respect community, not overrule them. I'm very disappointed in INC's actions here. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if the unblock was justified (and I myself think the length was extreme, even though I am not familiar with Livio's history with FPC), INC clearly knew this would be contentious, and did it unilaterally anyhow. It should have been discussed first. Reventtalk 13:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Er... take my agreement with the caveat that I do not think that it is acceptable to speculate on on what someone 'would' do, or their motivations. Colin is still 'right'. Reventtalk 13:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This is another 'involved' action from INeverCry which shows their complete inability to understand and appropriately handle their conflicts of interest or involvement.
Administrators are allowed to disagree with community consensus, but they are not allowed to circumvent or ignore community consensus. It's time for INeverCry's de-RfA request, for which I believe we need to discuss (probably here) first before the formal part of the process - the 'vote'. Nick (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Nick -- is this page the best one for any such community discussion prior to de-RFA. Wouldn't the AN or AN/U be better, since we aren't discussing a block. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I just wondered if this would be sufficient discussion to then lead to the de-RFA, and we wouldn't need to have an extensive discussion prior to the de-RFA. The policy is rather vague, unfortunately, just saying De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible. which could be interpreted in a couple of ways (either way though is fine with me). Nick (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The user livo is an excellent photographer and possibly he was well on his way to correcting his behavior, however, unfortunately INC is encouraging inappropriate user behavior. --The Photographer 13:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am no longer watching any of AN forums; I was pinged here and all I have to say now is: I would like to thank Colin once again for speaking the inconvenient truth, I fully encourage anyone who wants to initiate a desysop vote against INC, and I would support it at any time for a wide variety of reasons, with this ignorant unblock being just a tiny peak of the LTA iceberg. In case the desysop is started and I missed it, I'd appreciate if someone lets me know. Thanks. --A.Savin 16:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with this decision to unblock Livio after 3 months - and in fact, as I previously indicated, I would have supported a much shorter block (2 weeks) - but the procedure of one admin taking that upon himself, so as to act as if in the role of dictator, or if you prefer, loose cannon, and in the process, attacking all others who took part in previous discussions, is much more important to oppose than the unblocking decision is to support or oppose. I absolutely do not think a person who refuses to operate using normal procedures and consensus should ever be an admin, and I, too, would support de-sysoping INC for this action. Note that he literally asked for it. Please ping me as well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Shame on you! You should have been the one to have lifted this absurd block long before, this 6 month block was way out of proportion. I am very sorry to see that you rather create a hostile environment for one of our best admins, than admitting your own mistakes. Jcb (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jcb, shame on you for blaming A.Savin for INC's de-admin. This is nothing to do with the block, wise or otherwise, but about respecting community consensus. If you feel the block was "way out of proportion" then you should have raised this and/or commented at the previous community discussions. And I disagree with your comment that A.Savin "created a hostile environment", when this Livio block has in fact resulted in continued hostility from INC to A.Savin, including personal attacks he's been required to retract. This is a mess of INC's own doing, and absolutely no blame is due to A.Savin. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the comments for and against my actions. I've asked to have my sysop bit removed for the last time. I'll leave the situation with Livio in the hands of the community. I don't think I'm fit for adminship anymore. My sincere apologies for any disruption and conflict I've caused. I need to get back to doing the steady everyday work that I enjoy and that helps Commons. This kind of drama obviously isn't helpful for anyone. I wish Livio good luck and I hope to see him around for a long time to come, participating in a relaxed way, which is exactly what I intend to do going forward. If anyone ever sees another RFA from me, please oppose it! Take care, and again my apologies for this mess of mine and others. I've got to step back and take a breath. lNeverCry 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Nicolle Oh5541[edit]

Nicolle Oh5541 (talk · contribs) has resumed uploading non-free files after previously being blocked for the same behavior. Ks0stm (TCGE) 07:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed, given the previous 1 month block. Feel free to reduce the block duration. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User Zinyaw San, Zinyaw Chan, Zinyaw Kun[edit]

All three accounts uploaded similar copyvio/unsourced/unlicensed videos. Zinyaw Kun and Zinyaw Chan had already been blocked for one week. NinjaStrikers «» 16:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I blocked Chan and San indefinite as socks. Kun's block length has not been changed. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Deleted all obvious copyvios, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zinyaw Kun for the rest. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: Zinyaw Nichan seems to be sock puppet of the same master. Also this link may be helpful. --jdx Re: 17:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Blocked that and indefed Zinyaw Kun as well. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:長岡外史[edit]

This user has repeated copyright violations. Please see many deletion records in User talk:長岡外史. --Ralth Galth (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Benzoyl[edit]

This user has repeated copyright violations. Please see many deletion records in User talk:Benzoyl. --Ralth Galth (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Most of the DRs are not because copyright violation, but because scope. And in my opinion most of the photos should be kept. The photos are transferred from Flickr and they have free license. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock accounts - AdnanAliAfzal[edit]

Please block:

Sockpuppets of blocked user AdnanAliAfzal (talk · contribs), see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal. Also, repeated copyright violations and misuse as private photo album. GermanJoe (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)