User talk:Brooklands263

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Brooklands263!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
Blocked Indefinitely
Blocked Indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.
See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

azərbaycanca  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  hrvatski  Bahasa Indonesia  italiano  kurdî  la .lojban.  magyar  Nederlands  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  sicilianu  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Martin H. (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2014 (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: "I have done nothing wrong, I have been uploading images on wikimedia commons since February and there has never been any problems so I cannot understand why today I have been blocked, plus I am being accused of being a sockpuppet though no one has accused me of being that before since all my edits have been sourced. I'm just rather confused as to why I have been blocked??"
Decline reason: "Confirmed Sockpuppet, see below."
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)  +/−


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: "I have done nothing wrong, I have been uploading images on wikimedia commons since February and there has never been any problems so I cannot understand why today I have been blocked, plus I am being accused of being a sockpuppet though no one has accused me of being that before since all my edits have been sourced. I'm just rather confused as to why I have been blocked??"
Decline reason: "Confirmed Sockpuppet, see below."
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)  +/−

This account is a Confirmed sockpuppet of User:CaliforniaImages, User:DimSum38, User:OompahLoompah and User: Photoflexing. Some of those sockpuppets including this account are Confirmed sockpuppets of an long term abusive editor whos action are summarized under the name Marquis de la Eirron. The relation of the sockpuppets named above and the sockmaster has been confirmed independently on English Wikipedia and on Commons. In sum all sockpuppets of that user have enough problematic edits to fill an own wiki with it. Some of the past sockpuppets had lost of blatant copyright violations. The sockpuppets named above also have problematic edits, there are various deletion request, there are files where the author - studio owner or employee of a studio - has been described as "unknown" while infact the names of possible authors are clearly known by lists of studios employees or at least by an authorship asumption to the studio operator as a work of joint authorship. I see no reason to unblock this sockpuppet and allow the sockmaster to continue their disruptive work. --Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]