Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:AN/B • COM:AN/P

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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 at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 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	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	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 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

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~2
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No source since 2 August 2024: ~65
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-08: ~56

Other:

• Duplicates: ~15
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~0
• Other speedy deletions: ~3
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~1
• Requests for unblock: ~0
• Undeletion requests: ~9

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~6
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~3
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Kay Körner seems to be back as Wichlaugh this time

Hi, could someone please check whether Wichlaugh is another reincarnation of Kay Körner. Seems to be the same pattern to me (mass uploads, mostly from Dresden (Dec 2016) and Pirna (March/April 2017)). Thanks in advance! --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This time even useless filenames. Camera seems to be the same (or very similar) (Sony DSC-HK50) as used in 2016 by Blackwhiteupl, Bilderberg2016 and other copies of him. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Daphne Lantier 04:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should nuke the uploads. Not a change that those low quality files without usefull file names and discription will ever be cleaned up. @A.Savin: you have more experience with this user than I do. Do you believe that a nuke is warranted? Natuur12 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. 1300 files, most of them just trivial forest scenes, none has been used anywhere. And block evasion. Please nuke. --A.Savin 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Nuked Daphne Lantier 18:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to come up again: Wichlaugh was blocked, only a few hours later the account Realphotosourcearea was created and started editing files concerning Pirna, home town of Kay Körner, ... I fear this is another sockpuppet. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed - blocked and nuked. Эlcobbola _talk 20:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Kaunainchandiha

Please block Kaunainchandiha (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads) block user again for vandalism in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-week block. And please remember to notify them of the block on their talk page in accordance with Commons:Blocking policy#Instructions for administrators. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 1 month. Daphne Lantier 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• @LX and Daphne Lantier: The subject user is a sockpuppet/master and is related to Ashrafrahmani muz (talk · contributions · Statistics), Kaunainchandihaa (talk · contributions · Statistics) and Ashraf ahmani Muz (talk · contributions · Statistics). They have uploaded same/similar images of self from these accounts. Hence requesting appropriate blocks of all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Since Kaunainchandiha is the most recently used, I left it's block alone and indeffed the others. Obvious socks are blindingly obvious, in this case. - Revent^talk 06:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also:

• Ashraf rahmani Muzaffarpur (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Kaunainchandiha muz (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

—LX (talk, contribs) 10:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I blocked more accounts, deleted out of scope files and user pages, and reblocked with talk page edit disabled. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Amitie 10g

I've blocked this editor indefinitely. The reason can be read at User talk:Amitie 10g#Blocked. This user does good work, but his interactions with others, and especially Ellin Beltz, are almost invariably rude, sarcastic, or combative. He was indefinitely blocked in 2016 for his negative behavior toward Ellin Beltz, and the block was shortened to three months because he promised to leave off Ellin and be more respectful after he came back. He's failed to keep that promise, and not just regarding Ellin. He does good work, but he doesn't seem to be willing to treat other Commons editors with respect, and that is an unacceptable attitude. Fellow editors don't deserve to be mocked and abused when they make mistakes, and Amitie 10g does this on a regular basis. Since he's a long-term editor, I've reported the block here. If another solution to the problem/s is found or decided on, I have no problem with my block being changed, but we can't allow this negative behavior to just go on unchecked forever. Daphne Lantier 01:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that Amitie is sometimes a bit harsh, but I don't agree with a indefinite block. In some cases, deletions are not warranted, and Amitie was right to complain. Also, you should have warned him before. Hopefully we can find an agreement to work together. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to see Amitie unblocked, however the comment was sarcastic and foolish. It would be great if Amitie could put up their hands and make a heartfelt apology to Ellin Beltz and really did just lay off with the angry language. Ellin is a grown up contributor here, and will respond properly to complaints, but it only takes one person to be sniping and hounding you for the project to feel like a toxic environment and you start to regret logging in. An early unblock should be considered, but good will needs to be restored now. --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yann and Fæ: Amitie 10g has had previous warnings and a previous three month block in late 2016 for this very same behavior. He got that three month block by his own direct agreement. Part of that agreement was stopping his inappropriate behavior toward Ellin Beltz. He was warned again on March 17th of this year for the same behavior by Steinsplitter [1]. He still continued with sarcastic and rude comments toward Ellin Beltz in DRs even after that warning. You only get so many warnings, and he's had them. This is long-term disruptive behavior, and Ellin Beltz doesn't deserve to be treated disrespectfully for a year or more. He needs to own up to his behavior and stop it. He said last time that he needed some time off and he would come back a changed man, and that's not what happened. He went right back to what got him blocked. His unblock request doesn't look that good to me. He still can't stop talking about how bad Ellin's deletion requests are. I blocked him because it's the only way to prevent him from hassling Ellin and being rude to other people in DRs and at UDEL. I think perhaps a three or six-month block would be good this time with a final warning that when he comes back, any repeat of his rude and inappropriate behavior will lead to an indefinite block. We can't just let this continue. Daphne Lantier 09:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, As I said above, I agree that Amitie's language is rude and not appropriate. However his is right on the bottom, and I can understand his anger. Did you look at these DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:NathanBedfordForrest.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathan Bedford Forrest.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al Tantura.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathan Bedford Forrest High Resolution Photograph.jpg. There is quite a consensus that these DRs were not warranted. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Amitie 10g arranged a three month block with INeverCry after Amitie 10g himself said his behavior was completely inappropriate. Steinsplitter would have been perfectly justified in blocking him indefinitely on March 17th. Amitie 10g could have taken these DR issues to COM:AN/U, and made his case in a mature and respectful manner. He chose to take the low road. This has been going on for a year or more. We all have anger. That's not a license to be disrespectful and to constantly bother someone with rants and rude comments. I'm going to bed, but I first want to reiterate that I strongly object to any quick unblock. He's already made a promise and broken it. Letting him off quick with another promise would just be gaming the system. There have to be consequences in cases like this. Daphne Lantier 09:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you about the way he handled the issue. Would you agree with a three-month block? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: I would agree to it, but with the condition that the next block is indefinite. This should be his last shot. Daphne Lantier 10:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Three months is not proportionate. You have to consider the previous blocks, the last one was three months, therefore this block should be at least six months or indef. per standard practice. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Escalating blocks are normal, however we don't have to set a specific time up front. I suggest it's left as indef, with an expectation that 3 to 6 months may be the actual block. However if Amitie comes back with a credible commitment and a personal apology for Ellin, I would have thought there would be a lot more leniency. As said this was a foolish sarcastic comment, over the years I've had more hurtful things written at me by those wanting to be unpleasant, even claims about my mental health, yet no action was taken. If the opportunity comes up, leave room to be nice. --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Six months is the length I would prefer myself, but I wanted Yann (and others) to know that I'm open to consensus. The three month block by INeverCry made no difference, and this is particularly troubling in this case because the three month block was actually suggested/asked for by Amitie himself. If you look at his talk history from the time of INeverCry's block, you'll see Amitie saying he knows he's behaved badly and that he himself thinks he needs time off to reset. @Fæ: I'm truly sorry to hear that you've experienced such inappropriate treatment. Nobody should be treated with continuous disrespect or bullying. In this current situation with Amitie, my interest is stopping Amitie's poor behavior. As you know though, sometimes people are incorrigible in their behavior and attitude. Hopefully that's not the case with Amitie, but his history here certainly suggests that this may be the case. He often has a very abrasive approach in his interactions with fellow editors, and he's really gone after Ellin Beltz in particular over a considerable period of time. Daphne Lantier 20:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Six months as a minimum seems appropriate, as we do need to escalate here. The indeff block should be maintained for now, with leave to re-apply for editing rights after six months. Removal of the block should not be by a single admin, but only after community discussion and approval, taking into account the user's submissions at that time. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I will follow the consensus here. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with reducing the block to 6-12 mo. I am very saddened to see Amitie 10g losing it again. I stopped communicating with him because of his abrasive behavior, even so I could have used his expertise in things concerning Chile / South America and CoA. It should be made clear that a reduced block will be the last experiment the community will try and the next block will be indef and most likely stick. Further, I'd like to see Amitie 10g stay away from all DRs unless his comment is invited. As a timeframe I suggest 12 mo. no participation in DR / Speedy / Missing information deletions of any kind. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very happy that Amitie 10g is even temporarily blocked. I understand and appreciate the suggestions to put this as a 6-month block; but - there is no indication from past blocking and unblocking that any behavior will change. This behavior goes back to about May of 2015 and has never abated except during the tiny fraction of time covered by the prior blocks, which include:

• 26 April 2016 "It would be nice if you realized that other editors who spend a large amount of time here, as well as administrators and bureaucrats are here because they love this project and think it is important. Everyone makes mistakes, and it is good that we can all check each others' work - so please continue to do so, but your hostile tone and comments should be left at the door. Your "us vs them" attitude is not helpful..." Storkk
• 29 May 2016 "You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Intimidation/harassment." Christian Ferrer
• 24 June 2016 "The reason for the block is Another invalid ticket (ticket:2016060610017431) and another undel request based on a clearly invalid ticket. We are not talking about difficult cases open for interpertation but about major screw up after major screw up." Natuur12

Of those blocks, two were for being nasty to me, the other one for mistakes made while Amitie 10g was an OTRS volunteer. Due to those mistakes and a habit (see his talk page) of removing speedy deletion tickets without taking action on the item which caused it to go to speedy in the first place, several watch this and some renominate items he has tossed back on the pile (including "FBMD" files). That some of these eventually are kept and have proper source and license added is not a fault of the editor who nominates them for deletion. This is process; we do it all the time. Deletion nominations do not require upset and misery, personal accusations and drama; it is a process not a judgement and it is a process under the guidelines and for the benefit of Commons -- not ourselves personally. I personally do not support removing this block at all. Unfortunately, based on my experiences with promises made and broken by this user I do not think he is a good fit for Commons and I do not think his behavior will improve since that has been promised several times and he always has an excuse why his rudeness to me is my fault. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Stas.fran

The history & logs of File:Мірек Боднар, березень 2010 року.jpg indicate that User:Stas.fran is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:Elsha riki. Cabayi (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)