Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

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

Shortcut: COM:AN/U· COM:ANU

Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
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 instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email

[new report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
[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.

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, 54
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)


  • Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Extortion racket - Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts (2)[edit]

Apropos We should review the local contributions of these extortionists.

  1. Are any of these users administrators here?
  2. Should we block all of them? They've only been blocked en masse on en. User:Jamesally87 was blocked.

Edit: Let's keep discussing 'till resolution is more clear, and open questions are answered.

Specific users[edit]

For example, please see the discussion of bad faith editor Arr4, who has over 2000 edits here, at . The sock likely pushed for deletion of files, as part of the extortion racket. Possible examples and concerns:

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:D7K_6329_-_Sophie_Dee_(6746800711).jpg is very suspicious. (Also, Arr4 opened the DR, but the page shows that a User:Rahat, wikilinked to User:Ctg4Rahat, opened it, yet neither user exists; I don't see the normal evidence (e.g. logs, redirects) of a user rename.)
  2. File:Mosharraf Karim.jpg,File:Mosharraf karim.jpg, File:MosharrafKarim.jpg, all deleted.
  3. User_talk:Arr4#Your_bad_idea is concerning too.
  4. File:Tony022.jpg is claimed as the work of Ctg4Rahat/Arr4 BUT metadata says Chris Hardy took w/Canon EOS 5D.

The LTA entry on en says in part, 'There are 381 socks currently being blocked as a result of this investigation.' ... 'Some time later the article subject or person who has paid for the article to be moved to mainspace is then contacted again and advised that, for a specific monthly fee ($30/month in examples that have been confirmed), the “editor” will continue to protect the article from vandalism and prevent its deletion, claiming that they had previously done that without charge.'

--Elvey (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) (feel free to refactor above)

I think @Denniss: took care of blocking. File:Tony022.jpg deleted as copyright violation. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? I don't see evidence of that; I saw only that one sock that was blocked by him. More eyes please. I see you did the deletion but didn't refer to this thread or the LTA in your deletion. :-( What about Arr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? --Elvey (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The Arr4 account is not a 100% positive account at en wiki, looks like they blocked it because of some similarities + trollish behaviour. I have no time to check all his contribs for trollish, blockable behaviour so this account should at least unfergo a checkuser vs the sockfarm. All socks listed at en with existing accounts here have been blocked and contribs deleted. --Denniss (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, but says "The accounts listed on this page are all verified socks that are interrelated, as evidenced by both Checkuser data and editing behaviour and patterns." In other words, it says Arr4 is a verified sock based on both Checkuser data and editing behaviour and patterns". What Denniss is saying is in direct opposition with that. I see "some similarities + trollish behaviour" as a far cry from "Checkuser data". Risker says Arr4 is a verified sock. Denniss acts as if Risker is wrong about Arr4 being a sock, which seems oddly inconsistent and unexplained. More eyes please. Whether it's the right choice or not, the reasoning is opaque. --Elvey (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You say "All socks listed at en with existing accounts here have been blocked" but the Arr4 account is listed as a sock at en with an existing account here and yet has NOT been blocked. Is it the only such account?--Elvey (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I checked the recent ARR4 edits and there's nothing trollish to be found. He/she could use a last warning for copyvios, but that's about it. Nothing to justify a block according to our blocking policy. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Stemoc (talk · contribs) has been uploading copyrighted images, such as File:Queen Elizabeth II September 2015.jpg, File:Queen Elizabeth II and The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 2015.jpg and File:Queen Elizabeth II August 2015.jpg. And has admitted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince William September 2015.jpg‎ that he thinks this is acceptable, which is as good as admitting that he intends to continue to upload them. This is despite being informed on a previous occasion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge March 2015.jpg) that copyrighted images are not acceptable. At the very least, it is inappropriate for him to retain the image reviewer user right, and I recommend that it be revoked.

He has also misused rollback[1]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a common issue with confusion over Crown Copyright and when the OGL applies. I'll give an opinion based on my large number of batch uploads to Commons of MOD imagery and my amateur understanding over the past few years of changing MOD and UK Gov policies.
An initial look shows me the photo links don't work (probably as they rely on the user being logged in on cookies for a site session). I find the same photo at This leads me to the RAF site with a gallery of the same event under "© MOD Crown Copyright 2015", which I interpret as "if you want to use this photo, you'd better ask for permission" rather than OGL.
I then ran a separate search using and found the same photo there, under the MOD News licence. This at least is an explicit licence, however images which are only available under MOD News are not suitable for Commons (though they can be used under Fair Use on Wikipedia and Wikinews for reporting current events).
There is a twist here, please make a note of it; images which are released as MOD News on, have been seen to be changed to OGL after an embargo period (~30 days in practice). This can cause confusion as copies of the images will be around marked as MOD News even though other copies are OGL. In these cases we can safely assume that OGL applies as the stronger licence, however we should take care to validate copies as explicitly OGL to avoid confusion in years to come.
I don't think this needs admin action, but DrKiernan has a valid copyright concern. If Stemoc wishes to retain these images on Commons, then an official source must be produced that can be verified as OGL. RAF/military officers taking photographs in the course of their duties and releasing them as "MOD Crown Copyright" may not be the same thing as OGL, even if we have past examples where in the same circumstances these photographs were later released as OGL. Anyone interested in MOD policies can read thorough 2015 Re-Use Regulations which roughly sets out the case that MOD data is available for public reuse, though it is as clear as mud as to where OGL can be presumed to apply... -- (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Kiernan is not even bothering to read the licenses, I did.. YES i know the Catherine images was not free at that time (its probably free now but i can't find it anymore) but he refuses to read 'MOD's Copyright licensing Information' and quote regarding the use of "Photographs/Film footages" ... "In accordance with our delegation from HMSO, MOD uses two types of licence, the Open Government Licence and the MOD News Licence" and I checked all the images i uploaded EXIFs and none of them explicitly mentioned "MOD NEWS Licence" unlike the Catherine image which was deleted months earlier which means that if it was NOT released under the MOD NEWS licence then it was released under the 'OGL'. Kiernan speedy tagged them with a "deprecated"({{CrownCopyright}}) CSD tag without even bothering to ask me why I uploaded them in the first place and had the ones linked above in RED deleted...nowhere in those images did it see "MOD NEWS licence" even though they were under the news section in defenceimagery which is actually quite common place to find OGL images as the DR for the Prince William image, even there they explicitly chose 1 image in that section (and 2 footages) and they are the ONLY ones EXPLICITLY tagged under the MODS NEWS licence in their EXIF...the rest aren't thus are under OGL...every section in the "News" section has the words "Most of these files are currently available for limited reuse only" referring to the MODS News Licence, they don't even use the word" ALL", they used "MOST"..Read them as you wish but unless the exif explicitly has the word "MOD NEWS" in the copyright section, then only can we assume its under that licence, if not, its OGL.--Stemoc 12:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you may be under a misapprehension. The OGL is not a default licence for MOD photographs if no other is quoted. Neither are MOD photographs a mutually exclusive choice between MOD News and OGL, in fact government policy still leaves the MOD with options to restrict images from the public, including for reasons of privacy that one might expect for news worthy dignitaries. If you have seen an MOD or UK Government website or document that you believe says otherwise, I'd like to see it. My understanding remains that for an image to be OGL for Commons, then we must be able to verify a specific OGL release on a credible source.
You may want to play around a bit more with Photographs that are OGL always have the relevant tag and show up in the OGL search. Thanks -- (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This has already been explained, Fae. Stemoc believes that Crown Copyright means the image is allowed on wikimedia, and refuses to believe otherwise. That is why his image reviewer user right should be removed. He does not understand the difference between a copyrighted image and a cc-by one. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
When did I say that?, I do more work on commons than you, only 4000 edits here and you have image reviewer rights.. why? ...just because you are an admin on enwiki?..this is why we do not need useless people like him on commons..go back to enwiki, you are not needed here troll..and I hope we make a policy to remove image-reviewer rights from those who only have it for the sake of it ..again as i explained above, the defenseimagery has images on TWO LICENCES ONLY, read their damn copyright policy, 99% of their images which are protected by the "MOD NEWS" licences HAS the "MOD NEWS" licence tag in their EXIF...just because my recent images uploaded to commons were taken by a "NEW" photographer doesn't mean they were copyright violations..--Stemoc 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You said it here. Incivility merely confirms my view that you should not hold user rights. If you wanted me to change my view and withdraw my recommendation, this isn't the way to go about it. I've already shown that the image is released under the news license at the source and is taken from the "News packages" area not from the "Downloadable stock images" area. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Try to avoid straying into ad hominim argument (you know mine is way way huger than yours :-)). I have read the site licences, and I agree with DrKiernan based on the evidence provided so far. If you have other evidence, present it in the DR. I don't think rehashing the same stuff here will do much more than irritate some folks and there aren't all that many of us around with experience of UK MoD licences. -- (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
and again Kiernan, the site EXPLICITLY says that they are releasing the images under 2 licences, "MOD NEWS" and "OGL" and if the images is tagged as "MODS Crown Copyright" but it does not state in the copyright section of the EXIF that its tagged under "MOD NEWS", then we can assume its under OGL...OGL is like PD.. just because its not mentioned doesn't mean its not released under that licence....the EXIF info is not added after the image is taken, especially when photographers take the same camera to take pictures which they intended to release under MOD News and under OGL...someone should probably ping James Forrester as he was involved with this--Stemoc 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Fae says above that the image is explicitly licensed as MoD News at the site and that OGL is not the default. I agree, and I presume that the admins deleting your uploads do so as well. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with and DrKiernan. The text Stemoc quotes is not sufficiently precise and clear in scope for one to determine with legal authority that these are the only two licences in use for all photographs and the the OGL is the default. I also note the text goes on to say the the OGL is not suitable for images with recognisable people and that the MOD does not allow the reproduction of images showing members of the Royal Family. I don't know how he thinks "OGL is like PD" in terms of it being something that can be assumed. OGL is a licence; PD is not. There is a significant danger, especially among images of famous people, that one of our re-users gets into trouble based on misinformation provided by Commons. I think if Stemoc continues to not listen and make personal attacks over this, some admin action is required. Copyright is extremely complicated business and unless one is a copyright lawyer then the subject should be approached with humility (I speak from experience, where some time ago, I learned just how impossible the subject can be). -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

MoD has a delegation from HMSO to handle image relicensing themselves. So if they didn't tag it with OGL it isn't OGL. See [2]. Image deleted. --Denniss (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Denniss: It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure the delegation is purely to the MOD Press Office, and not in general a delegation for all employed under the auspices of the SoS/Defence. So this may not be totally correct, but for obvious reasons TNA are loathe to publicly criticise fellow public servants when the rules are mis-represented with fuzziness. James F. (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Any disputes about the scope of Crown Copyright can be handled elsewhere (and have been), and I see no indication that Stemoc has been actively acting in bad faith. The complaint about misuse of rollback is spurious... Stemoc removed a post from his own talk page, which is allowable whether he used rollback or not. Where he supposedly said that he 'intended to continue' uploading problematic images... I see no such statement. A legitimate difference of opinion (or even a misunderstanding) does not constitute a reason for admin action, if the person does not act to subvert the decision that has been reached. This dispute belongs in either DRs or, possibly, COM:VP/C. The 'image reviewer' userright relates to image sources where the situation is far more clearcut (such as Flickr or Youtube), and in the absence of any evidence of either bad faith editing or gross incompetence in the specific field to which the right actually applies, it would be IMO inappropriate to override the consensus that granted him that userright. I'm not going to actually close this, since i can't really claim to be completely impartial here, but any discussion belongs elsewhere. There is, as Fae noted, no need for any admin action. Revent (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Revent, I don't think your contribution here is helpful, if you think comments like "this is why we do not need useless people like him on commons..go back to enwiki, you are not needed here troll" are "no indication that Stemoc has been actively acting in bad faith". There is a limit to the patience of those participating at DR when one user appears to not listen and becomes aggressive. This is why it was raised here. The overwhelming consensus is that Stemoc is entirely wrong in this matter, and if he was a gentleman he should apologise. While no admin action may be required at this point, Stemoc has disgraced himself with the remarks made here to DrKiernan, and his stubborn display of ignorance. Further such remarks, or further examples of "not getting it" wrt MoD imagery, should indeed provoke a swift admin response. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
While people should be civil, and an apology would be nice, disliking someone or even being rude to them is not acting in bad faith, and neither is simply being mistaken about the copyright status of an image. Stemoc does not appear to be, from what I see, intentionally trying to upload images that he knows are not allowable... he's argued his point of view, and simply being wrong about something is not a reason for a sanction. Kiernan seems to be mistaken about something as well, in that "Crown Copyright" images are perfectly fine as long as they are acceptably licensed... that is the entire point of the OGL. Again, there is nothing here that needs any admin action beyond the deletion of a few images (I just killed a few more that were marked at the given source as "MOD News license only"), and Kiernan and Stemoc should just try to avoid arguing with each other. Revent (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
If Stemoc had been "simply" wrong, there would have been no request made here. And continuing to upload after being told you are wrong, is heading towards a block. Revent, you seem quite determined to close your eyes to what is clearly going on here, and Commons is not a school playground where bully's friends take sides. Stemoc was being outrageously abusive towards DrKiernan and certainly had a bad faith towards him. I have to assume that by continuing to ignore the obvious, you are too blind to the flaws of a friend and too willing to defend bullying -- something very troubling in an admin. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Colin always had an axe to grind with me because of my support for Russavia and has previously tried to get me banned so i would like to ask Colin to back off or his name would be appearing in this thread next time for harassment...this would be my first and only warning for him...also, a user can revert anything they choose from their talk page, there is no laws on any wiki regarding that. I just did not like the fact that Kiernan was 'hounding' my edits...Read James Forrester's comments above, this was a mistake on their part, James has worked with the British government on the OGL licensing framework thus why I mentioned he should be pinged. Kiernan is under the 'misinterpretation' that "NO" crown copyright images are allowed on commons which is false, Crown copyright images created by certain government officials can fall under OGL. TNA, as James mentioned is not explicitly clear on this or bother to try to be. I'm not intentionally adding NFC so i found it rude that Kiernan asked for my image-reviewer rights to be removed when he himself only has the right for the sake of it and has not done any work relating to that in years (if at all)..recently there was a request for more IR on commons and here we have people with the rights who are not doing their job and using it as a 'medal' is not something i like..Colin has now called me a bully and called an administrator my friend and yet somehow when he used his admin friend (yann) to get me banned even though i was a victim of an abuse by another admin is completely forgotten by him..Colin, all you do is harass real contributors and create drama on commons and nothing else..Commons needs contributors and hard workers, you are not it so stop complaining and start working..and if you can't do either, gladly leave..Commons already has a bad reputation of being run amok by trolls and vandals..don't add to it.--Stemoc 07:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice try Stemoc, but if you continue to behave outrageously, people will continue to call you out on it. I am not in the slightest bit concerned about your ridiculous claim of "harassment" which is a bit like a pickpocket claiming they are being harassed by the police every time they are nicked. I see you continue with an accusation of bad faith towards me, just as you put DrKiernan into a "group" by suggesting he go back to en:wp. It is quite obvious, from your words, that you have a bad faith attitude towards certain groups on Commons. Your comments to DrKiernan, which is what I spotted here and brought me to this discussion, are bullying. Plain and simple. And Revent disgraces himself by defending them as merely a bit of rudeness we should all put up with. I shall ignore your rant at the end, which is typical of your attitude. Look at what you wrote to DrKiernan above and consider that further such comments will result in a swift block. There is nothing more to say on that matter. It is indefensible. The link with Russavia is merely that it appears you are both bullies, and not any "axe to grind". You will find that if you stop bullying others, and stop defending bullies, then I have no issue with you. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Lol, if anything Colin, over the years, many users have realized one thing, its you who is the bully, Its your way or the highway..I'm not a bully, never have been a bully but i was bullied off wikimedia once so i won't let another bully (you) do it again...Keep acting like you care about this wiki cause you certainly do not..You are not the Eric Corbett of Commons lol..anyways, continue to make it look like I'm the bully here, I just pointed out a fact, something admins should discuss in regards to users keeping certain rights permanently on this wiki which include IR, File movers etc as none of these rights should be the referees say in rugby "use it or lose it" ..Funny how you can get away by calling 'others' bullies but yet refuse to be judged by others.. If Kiernan finds what i said regarding his lack of activity on this wiki insulting then he can say that here himself and i would apologise if he does, he does not need a secretary to tell him to do so..and attacking an admin is probably not the best move here Colin especially when that admin had also supported russavia i said, stop lying, you have an axe to grind with anyone who has or had supported russavia before and people who use the wiki as a battleground for their own personal agendas are not welcome not only on this wiki but WIKIMEDIA as a whole..--Stemoc 08:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Stemoc, this is the noticeboard topic where your behaviour comes under scrutiny. It isn't a place for you to rant about me and make all sorts of unfounded and silly personal attacks. Keep digging and you'll find yourself blocked again. With the copyright issue there may well be aspects that DrKiernan didn't get right and there were certainly aspects you did not get right (your images are deleted), so some humility is needed here -- there's always more to learn about copyright and it is not right to attack other users here when they claim you are wrong. But I see you are not getting it. And you were blocked by Yann because you made hugely offensive remarks, repeatedly, about INC, marks regarding mental health that are absolutely forbidden. You weren't blocked because someone with a Russavia grudge found a friend to block you. You were blocked because you repeatedly hugely exceeded the acceptable conduct that users of this site must follow. There are plenty admins and 'crats who would agree with me that your comments then were shameful. Yet you seem to have no shame about it. DrKiernan raised copyright concerns about images you uploaded and the images have been deleted -- yet you think he should go back to en:wp? Tell me how that logic join's up. You seriously need to stick to the current topic, which is your bullying of DrKiernan over DRs and your continued refusal to get the point when others disagree with you, and just drop this "Oh this is because I support russavia" nonsense. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that all Crown copyright images are disallowed: only those not licensed as OGL (as shown by edits such as this). I haven't 'hounded' Stemoc either. Anyone even glancing at my contributions either here or at wikipedia can easily see that they are mainly in the area of the British royal family, and so my commenting on images of them should not come as a surprise. I think the continued incivility (despite my comment above) and the refusal to acknowledge fault strengthens the case for administrative action. Stemoc would be wiser to approach the issue collaboratively rather than combatively. If he'd said "oh yes, thanks for pointing that out. I got that image/those few images wrong; I'll pay more attention in future" then none of this would have been necessary and this thread would have been closed already. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a proposition but I need both @Fae: (or someone else who is familiar with crown copyright, OGL etc) and @Stemoc: to agree with this. It is clear that it is confusing when a certain file is licensed under the OGL. Comets made several mistakes and honestly, he doesn't show a lot of self relfection so I am afraid that it will happen again. (Ad homiminem like defence and refusing to understand the point). I would propose that Stemoc stops uploading files which he believes are licensed under the OGL unless he asked for Fae's advice about the file he wants to upload. Natuur12 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, flattered to be thought of, and it would be nice to have this thread close down. If Stemoc is happy with this informal arrangement for a period, then they can drop me an email and/or have a private chat on IRC (google talk is more reliable for me as I haven't been regularly on IRC recently), and I can have a quick look over of photos or sites without attracting any fuss on-wiki; though I'm not always handy for the internet every day :-). I guess I'm known for my track record over the last year or two for correctly licensing a large number of MoD uploads, as well as a pile DoD uploads with ~99.9%+ accuracy; this should give confidence to move along and get back to content stuff... -- (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyllfully editing Category:Flickr images needing human review[edit]

Please someone take a look at this high-visibility edit: Special:Diff/174306281 This was a(n immediate) reversion of my reversion of something I precieved as either niche trolling or extreme cluelessness. Maybe there’s more to it? -- Tuválkin 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This was reverted immediately because (a) my translation was valid and (b) I was only online when I received the notification that my edit was reverted. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And I reverted because you presented an en-CA version of the text that’s exactly identical to the plain en one. Frankly having 50 separate en-ZZ versions for each country where English is the official language seems silly, especially when there’s no change at all (the difference "license" / "licence" was not in the version I reverted, making Skyllfully’s revertion’s edit summary really weird). -- Tuválkin 02:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That seems okay, although, for users who have set the Commons to Canadian English, will get all languages there and have to fish out English because when a Canadian IP address connects, the Commons suggests viewing it in en-CA. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 12:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Resolved

User:Shabeeb1 was given an endcopyvio warning in July 2013 but has continued to upload copyvios. I think all copyvios are now deleted and/or currently tagged. Can someone take whatever action is appropriate? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted recent copyvios, indefblocked (given the past warnings and block). Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Nordenfan, User:Ficilbotoe95 - socks at Quality images Candidates.[edit]

Nordenfan (talk · contribs)

Ficilbotoe95 (talk · contribs)

Ficilbotoe95 started today his first edit after more than four years, four minutes later User:Nordenfan nominated three pictures, another 6 minutes later, Ficilbotoe95 promoted exactly this three pictures plus another one.

Both account are from the same city in NRW, Germany, they have the same type of Userpage-Info, both edited in Wikipedia exactly the same Lemmas. Steinernkreuz, Bundesautobahn 52, Alt-Marl, Marl.

Wikipedia-Contributions: User:Ficilbotoe95

Nordenfan rejected on request any suspicion of socketpuppetry. --Hubertl 21:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hubertl, Nordenfan, Ficilbotoe95: CU started: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ficilbotoe95. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Sumita Roy Dutta[edit]

Sumita Roy Dutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

And yet another mass Flickr2C uploader of >>10K files w/o usage, sense, and categories, within few days. Steinsplitter, where's your abuse filter? Really unbelievable what's going up here... ((( --A.Savin 23:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, what’s exactly the problem? I browsed through a few of these and found no glaring scope or license issue. Will you be filing in deletion requests? -- Tuválkin 14:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)