Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Unfitlouie!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard

Since your interests are not aligned with the interests of the Community (disruptive editions as here as the English Wikipedia, including sock puppetry), I reported you to the Administrators' Noticeboard. We don't accept disruptive editions, even to justify other's disruptive ones. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pay no attention to the small man behind the curtain, Dorothy. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the boost, I was getting slightly pulled down by the theatrics here and wanted to get back to Kansas. Unfitlouie (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Ellin Beltz: so, are you supporting a user who acted even worse than Russavia and even acusing Fae to have sockpupets without proof? Deleting files without valid reasons or opening non-sense DRs hurts the Project, that's all. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing in my comment, based on the book and movie The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) which has a single thing to do with anyone other than this talk page's user. If you have ever seen the movie, or read the book, and considered this situation, I'm sure you would understand the reference. As it is, I am sorry it sailed right over your head and you have now applied your own referents to a simple comment. Do please try to have a drama-free day, the world will be a happier place for it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
The problem is, with that comment, you're encouraging the user to make disruptive editions (since he acussed Fae for sock puppetry, but he also used sockpuppets and it was checked by Checkusers at least twice)... Double standard. You're right with making a drama-free day, but the serious issues that affecting Commons (copyvios, Copyright paranoia, Russavia and the Community division, etc) should not be ignored. This user has been blocked thanks the research (and also thanks by my report at the ANU), reaffirming my assumptions that the user acted not in good faith, end of the discussion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your account has been blocked

Natuur12 (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "Since when do blocks issued on English Wikipedia by that community get automatically endorsed by blocks at Commons ? Funny, how it didn't happen in case of Commons sysops like Russavia or Fae who were repeatedly blocked for socking at numerous projects 1.186.192.2 06:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)"Reply
Decline reason: "Long term abusive user, no reason to unblock. Yann (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)"Reply
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch  English  español  français  hrvatski  magyar  Plattdüütsch  português  Simple English  Tiếng Việt  suomi  svenska  македонски  русский  हिन्दी  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  中文(臺灣)  /−