Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | User problems

Ruggeri86

Ruggeri86 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. Has created another account, 86ruggeri (talk · contribs) to upload or reupload the same copyrighted stuff, like File:EJERCITO10.jpg already deleted as File:MAC 10.jpg. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Blocked 86ruggeri indef. 3 day block for Ruggeri86.
@Patrick Rogel: please also warn the users on their TP about copyvio. Visual File Change has two templates you can use Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Www2018www

Www2018www (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - serial unsourced uploads with random licensing and without PD rationale, after multiple warnings. --Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done I warned the user. All his/her uploads are nominated for deletion or deleted. Taivo (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

GCW1960

GCW1960 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios or useless edits. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  Done I deleted his/her all uploads (except one simple file). Taivo (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts: block evasion Максим Огородник - 3

@Ymblanter: , @Yann: new account — Mark1237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See preceding:

Files in Commons Files in Ukrainian Wiki
File:Шманьківці - Ставка - 4.jpg uk:Файл:Шманьківці - Ставка - 4.JPG
File:Шманьківці - Сім'я Вавриневичів-Ушіїв - 1.jpg uk:Файл:Шманьківці - Сім'я Вавриневичів-Ушіїв - 1.JPG
File:Шманьківці - Автошлях С201611 в бік Швайківців - 4.jpg uk:Файл:Шманьківці - Автошлях С201611 в бік Швайківців - 4.JPG
File:Шманьківці - Образ святого Миколая - 2.jpg uk:Файл:Шманьківці - Образ святого Миколая - 2.jpg
File:Шманьківці - С201609 - 4.jpg uk:Файл:Шманьківці - Образ святого Миколая - 2.JPG
File:Шманьківці - Автошлях С201609 - 3.jpg uk:Файл:Шманьківці - Автошлях С201609 - 3.JPG
and others and others

--Микола Василечко (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done, blocked, all uploads deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Astronomi06

Astronomi06 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios despite block. Other uploads by the user are suspicious too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done 3 months block. Yann (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Help

To any admin who can offer a helping hand. Please look into the edits of 149.254.248.70 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), the user has been adding an ebay website link to some files which i’ve tried to rollback twice. The link was first added by 82.132.184.228 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log) which I reverted. And SuperSucker did the same thing. Do spare some time and take a look at this. 大诺史 (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Do also take a look at the talk page of SuperSucker.
Blocked the IP's for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Maayanathi

Maayanathi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Эlcobbola talk 14:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of DR template

The following uses are in an "Edit war" with DannyS712 on 2 file pages, File:0001tattoo on the penis.jpg & File:1Views from the penis.jpg. Its kind of obvious that it is the same person behind these IPs. 大诺史 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've semi-protected both image-pages for 2 weeks and blocked the 3rd IP for filing revenge-DRs against DannyS712. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ruggeri86

Ruggeri86 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked for another two weeks. Next time may be indefinite. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Marcos886avila

Marcos886avila (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Abusing multiple accounts (a.k.a. Ruggeri86 (talk · contribs), 86ruggeri (talk · contribs)): same website copied, same destination (es:Anexo:Equipamiento del Ejército Argentino). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Yann and De728631, given the circumstances, I've changed the block of Ruggeri86 to indef. I'm sure there will be no objections, but pinging you both just in case. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
That's alright with me. Thanks, Julian. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Several counts of copyright violation

Huỳnh Đức DeuGer uploaded many files and claimed them to be own work. However, Patrick Rogel & TwoWings found some images online. (see Huỳnh Đức DeuGer) Can someone take a look at this and I believe all uploads should be nuked. 大诺史 (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

JuniorJunior

All uploads are copyvio and need wiping.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done You already sent a last warning. Let's see if the message gets through. All files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Woodtech587

Cet utilisateur viole trop souvent le copyright et a une fâcheuse tendance a ignorer les avertissements, par blanchiments répétés de sa page de discussion.

J'estime qu'il faudrait sanctionner ce compte, SVP. 86.208.255.254 18:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This user violates the copyright too often and has an unfortunate tendency to ignore warnings, by repeated blanchings of his discussion page . I think this account should be sanctioned, please.
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  Done Last warning sent. Hopefully, this is enough. Any further copyright violation should lead to a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Kimanoza

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef per above. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Manager27

Everything is copyvio, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Not everything was copyvio, so I blocked Manager for a week. Taivo (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The others files were pictures of him... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Not only. There are couple of free logos too. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Platin555

Platin555 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Abusing multiple accounts (a.k.a. Marcos886avila (talk · contribs), Ruggeri86 (talk · contribs), 86ruggeri (talk · contribs)): same websites copied, same destination (es:Anexo:Equipamiento del Ejército Argentino). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Indef., all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Th3dwd3

Bonjour,

La plupart des fichiers importés par ce nouvel utilisateur sont des copyvios flagrants :

Par ailleurs, il est probable que ce soit un faux-nez du compte Avignonplayers (talk · contribs), en témoignent les contributions croisées sur Wikipédia en français (voir [1] et [2]) ; la liste des anciens faux-nez est d'ailleurs disponible ICI.

Ainsi, j'estime qu'il y a abus. 2A01:CB0C:841B:E00:B828:BB62:FE5A:37A3 02:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Vous devez informer l'utilisateur si vous ouvrez un sujet à son propos ici. Je l'ai fait pour vous cette fois.
  Comment User warned, files deleted. A request for checkuser may be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Tris T7

(Don't click his CPU-heavy user page.)

Tris T7 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hello, User:Tris T7 is creating controversial category's, after he has been asked not to do so on his talkpage and a RFC (Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018) which i closed. I don't think this is helpful, but only serves the pourpuse to boost the edit count and to flood other users watchlist. We have {{Unc}} for that purpuse (which is added by upload toold or by bot). --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Steinsplitter This is User Tris T7 as you can see i have only 1 and haft years edited experienced. Yes i agreed if system still allow new user to edit. But in my opinion the user who open discussion should not be user who close discussion until get conclusion for what i did. I have seen files mixing up together between .SVG , . PDF, Animated .GIF, Audio, Video, Illustration files, Logo files which in file name showing logo text, black and white files, Etc. to Category it should separate and classified. So i started and when i have been asked to stop i do not have chance to undo what i did by myself as i asked. I think sysops should be more respect to new user for discussion and i think sysops who have rights for translator should use correct word in conversation. Also mistake about revert which user Steinsplitter agreed as per conversation :For the few logo files which i reveted accidentally, yes

and here are full conversation for it.

+19‎ m File:Bokeh (138570399).jpeg ‎ Copying from Category:All media needing categories as of 2018 to Category:Images from 500px photo needing categories as of 2018; Remove {{Uncategorized}} current [rollback: 1 edit] [br] Tags: Cat-a-lot, PHP7

Please immediataly stop this kind of edits. Uncategoryzed files are tagged with the relevant template ({{Uncategorized}}), not a category. Please follow due process, there is no consensus to tag uncategoryzed files as you did. Best. --Steinsplitter (A) (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Same for Category:Black and white files needing categories as of 2019, Category:Images from 500px photo needing categories as of 2018, etc. Do not create such categry's. Apart from the fact that it is unwanted, you are flooding the recent changes. Those are bot tasks. CC: @Themightyquill (A), Roy17: --Steinsplitter (A) (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Question for category Hello Steinsplitter (A) CC: @Themightyquill (A), Roy17: How are you? I hope you are well. As per rights of Admins or Sysops you have. This is Tris T7. As per your reverted for my edited about many of file from Media needing categories. Example i have added category to specific files such as

File:Banglanews logo20180725112204.jpg to Category:Logos from Media without category and the file name shown it is logo as you can see and it is press company as file name shown Banglanews so my question is Why you reverted my edited? Please kindly provide me some knowledge what i did wrong so i can understand and next time please allow me to revert them by myself that way i can learn and not to do it again with other files. And maybe before you revert someone editing if you can kindly communicate with them before revert and find out reason perhaps none of this would get easier to handle and you do not need double work to do.

Thank you for support. Regards, ..Tris T7 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Here are some more file you reverted that i added to Logos category:

File:Barbour Brand Logo.svg as file name shown Logo so you have remove it out from Logos category that i did. Thank you and await for your reply...Tris T7 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

File:BankAxept logo.png some more sample for question i have asked...Tris T7 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Bankhaus Lampe logo.svg

File:Bank BSU Logo.svg

File:Barat logo Bildzeichen materials.jpg

File:Bankverein Werther logo.svg

File:Barclaycard Logo.svg

File:Baojun logo.png

File:Bares für Rares Logo.png

File:Barone-Mgmt logo web-rgb.png

File:BartendingSchool-LogoV2-Final.gif

File:BARKING GECKO LOGO.jpg

File:Bata National High School logo.png

File:Bank Millenium.svg

File:Bankverein Werther AG.svg Especially this file when you have look i have asked 10 people that this file are logos or not and answered 100% said it is logo but you have removed it out from Category:Logos that i have edited.

So all file above just a few sample that you removed them out from Category:Logos from files needing categories or none category files. So please kindly explain for me to understand and the rest i will handle revert by myself so you do not to worry about it again. Thank you again for support and i just contributed 1 year and a few months old. So if something i did wrong please kindly provide knowledge or details so i will not do mistake again. Regards..Tris T7 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

About Category:Black and white files needing categories as of 2019, Category:Images from 500px photo needing categories as of 2018, etc. In future Can you kindly let contributors or user who created handle the work and kindly provide knowledge to them what they did wrong so they can be next generation of support when the current generation not interesting for contributions any longer or something happen with them so there are still have chance to continue the legacy. And what i did i think it useful as per separated black and white files out of mixing load of file from over 2xx,xxx files that needing categories. But if you want to revert them at lease you should have consensus before or at lease let me undo after conclusion of consensus. But now you have reverted and deleted it without discuss with me. I am just expecting that user with long time experienced could be more kind to give me knowledge i do not have and i can learn from it and not make the same mistake again plus correct direction for future contributions and support project. So please in future if you could provide me how to do the right thing as policy. please kindly support. Same with other new comers and any users. anyway i am learning many thing from this contributions and could use them in Phabricator to prevent and improve for better system..Thank you in advances, Regards,..Tris T7 (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read the policy's and the guidelines. You have to read them yourself, i cannot "provide knowledg" to you. There is no consenus for your changes, there is a closed CFD (where is no consensus). I see multiple complains regarding your edit pattern on yor talkpage, also multiple deleted files, uploaded in violation of COM:L. And regarding the stuff you wrote on my talkpage, this looks like a revange - i had to revert thousands of edits so i acceidentally reverted a few too much, accidentally. Do not play the system and make sure you follow due process. --Steinsplitter (A) (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I still did not understand why you did not answer my question above so i am asking again for

File:Banglanews logo20180725112204.jpg

File:Barbour Brand Logo.svg

File:BankAxept logo.png

File:Bankhaus Lampe logo.svg

File:Bank BSU Logo.svg

File:Barat logo Bildzeichen materials.jpg

File:Bankverein Werther logo.svg

File:Barclaycard Logo.svg

File:Baojun logo.png

File:Bares für Rares Logo.png

File:Barone-Mgmt logo web-rgb.png

File:BartendingSchool-LogoV2-Final.gif

File:BARKING GECKO LOGO.jpg

File:Bata National High School logo.png

File:Bank Millenium.svg

File:Bankverein Werther AG.svg

As per 16 sample files above Which files allow to add in Category:Logos? None of it? or all of it? If all of it Am i allow to add them back to Category:Logos? I did not understand when you said "Accidentally reverted" Did you mean what i edited are useful? Can you give exactly amount of files that you accidentally did revert? And do not get me wrong about what i have asked none of discussion are revenge. I mentioned those stuff because i want to clarify and get thing right and useful for others that all. Here also not revenge but i am kindly request you to recheck them and make sure that those files are belong to category or not before you revert someone editing. So i will wait for your answer for question above to let me know amount of files you accidentally reverted. Thank you for your reply and Regards..Tris T7 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For the few logo files which i reveted accidentally, yes. --Steinsplitter (A) (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

So i am not sure at this point what we have to do first thing is to allow sysops to recheck accidentally reverted. Or create tools for prevent new user or editors? And again what i added in this discussion are not revenge as per user:Steinsplitter mentioned but to find resolution to prevent not to let it happen again for the same issue of accidentally reverted of over 100 files..Tris T7 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)..Tris T7 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I am adding more question here about revert edit. As per those over hundreds of Logo files did not related to Category:Jpeg and 500px or black and white files which meant User:Steinsplitter reverted all my edit before recheck what i have done. So now i have to add those Logo files to Category:Logos again which i do not mind to do so but do not want to consider as vandalism until i make sure that i am allow to do it. So please User:Steinsplitter if you can kindly confirm with me i can continue those contribution for project. .. Thank you..Tris T7 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The user is asking "more questions" but fails to see that his mass-edits (as described in the initial complain) are not helpful. Please advise the user to stop this kind of edits, becuase there is no consensus to do so. While it is true that i accidentally reverted a few useful edits when closing the CFD (nothing compared to thousands of edits which the user made), it does not change the fact about Tris T7's controversal category changes and the closed CFD. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I thought he stopped, but actually went on to create more useless categories.
@Tris T7: please read COM:CAT carefully. If you have questions, you can ask at COM:VP.
Others, I believer the following cats should be nuked:
  1. Category:Spider's A Families
  2. Category:Spider's B Families
  3. Category:Banknotes of the World organised for education--Roy17 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted those nonsense categories. We are getting perilously close to a CIR block here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear all who involved in this discussion

Are we still talking about Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018? We should have conclusion 1 subject per discussion and if it done then please kindly add another subject to discuss so other who read it will not get confuse. So i knew now Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018 not allow and i stopped and it will never happen again for Category:JPEG xxxxxxxxxxxxxx etc. and User:Steinsplitter a few accident reverted to me it should be 1 or 2 files not over 100 files so if you see my attention to get all jpeg files separated out from mixing in those over hundred thousand files. You also should mention about Illustration files that i separated as well. So i am learning from it what allow and what not to. And if you want me to responsible for it you should let me undo it and delete those category that you think it not useful that will make editors understand more than what happened. But i am also did not complain for it because i respect your rights of sysop that you have experienced for years of it. But for me i just only have time to learn for over 1 and a half year. So Please in future if i do some mistake please discuss with me and allow me to fix all of those mistake by guide me if you can. Thank you in advanced. ..Tris T7 (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

213.92.251.220

213.92.251.220 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

URL spam.--Roy17 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done, 1 day-block for spamming. --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

172.113.228.134

172.113.228.134 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

IP user disrupting Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stage Actor and Play Director Darryl Maximilian Robinson.jpg. He spams entirely unrelated article content and source links into a deletion discussion, that should focus on a lack of permission from the original photographer. By now this is clearly disrupting any chance of a civil discussion. His occasional personal attacks and namecalling aren't helpful either. As my nomination of his photo is apparently seen as personal insult, could an uninvolved admin please advise the user about the purpose of such a discussion and warn him about civility? I would warn him myself of course, but seeing his current reactions any message from me would likely be considered as inflammatory. If the user doesn't want to provide verifiable evidence for a free license, the file should be deleted as "no permission" imo. GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked IP for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Rogel

"Patrick Rogel" marked a photo that I was given express permission to use by the owner "for deletion" - His "talk" channel appears to have similar complaints...

To whom it may concern,

I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I have spent the better part of 3 years contributing quality content to 'genius.com' and have just been promoted to Senior Editor of One West Magazine - I say that only to preface my experience with citing sources, my track record for accuracy and consistency, and my relation to Darnell Price (who provided the aforementioned profile picture).

I was recently asked by OG Cuicide's management (a well-known rapper, entrepreneur, and activist from Los Angeles) to help re-create a Wikipedia page for him, since his previous page was inexplicably removed. That is a whole other story (regarding a corrupt Wiki contributor from Turkey who threatened to remove the page if Darnell Price didn't pay him to "protect" it...) but I will stick to the point here as best I can.

It appears as though "Patrick Rogel" has marked other people's content for deletion before, and those users are just as unhappy with their experiences as I am becoming with mine. (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patrick_Rogel)

It is extremely disappointing to see that this user clearly has a habit of doing this. Especially after reading the following response on his page:

>Dear Mr. Rogel, Through the death of my husband Leonhard R. Lang, the image rights have passed to me. As his widow, I am entitled to make illustrations of his works available to the public - and this is my express wish. I am Heidi-pina. Please take back your deletion request. Yours sincerely, Heidelinde Lang --Heidi-pina (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please address this concern as quickly as you can, I am trying to launch this new Wikipedia bio soon.

Thank you for your time,

-Aaron Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace woe (talk • contribs)

Dear Aaron, per our policy all files previously published somewhere in internet under non-free license should have OTRS-permission. Copyright belongs to Heidelinde Lang and formally only she has right to publish the photo under free license. So you should open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Permission must come from copyright holder, that menas from Heidelinde Lang. Commons takes all copyright questions very seriously. For example, you said "own work" on file page, although you are not the photographer. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Patrick tagged the image for speedy deletion because it is an exact copy of an image already published on the internet. He did nothing wrong here. Emailed permission from the copyright holder of the photograph (not the subject) is necessary.
The Wikipedia article was deleted because your client does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, not because of any corruption. Please read the Wikipedia policy on conflict-of-interest editing (particularly this starter guide) - since you have a connection to the subject, you are limited as to what edits you can make. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I think the request concerned File:4w1a8578aaaaa.jpg (which is a picture of Darnell Price AKA OG Cuicide) and has nothing to do with this Leonhard R. Lang thing. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Biology2016

Biology2016 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Abusing multiple accounts: same uploads or reuploads of already deleted files by Evolution2point0 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, all files deleted. I have a bad feeling about these accounts. Could you please ask for checkuser for sleepers? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

ภาษาอังกฤษ

ภาษาอังกฤษ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) This user's entire contributions list has been nonsensical edits. When I reverted them on File:GitHub logo 2013 padded.svg and warned them, they proceeded to make it worse. Opencooper (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done I blocked the user for a month, deleted 3 copvios and reverted vandalism. Taivo (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jukomart

Jukomart (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Reuploads the same file again and again despite previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Comment :-( I explained him, that if he once more re-uploads the photo, then he will be blocked again. I explained him need of OTRS-permission. Good is that the photo has now EXIF and he does not claim own work anymore. Taivo (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  Done Blocked for the 3rd time, now for 2 weeks. — Racconish 💬 06:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Guido den Broeder has been warned and Fram agreed to move further discussions regarding the WMF ban at en:wp to Meta. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

While I can see the irony in this, it is becoming rather tedious. As you are probably aware, I have been recently banned fom enwiki by the WMF for one year. I have discussed this ban here on my user talk page.

Almost immediately, User:Guido den Broeder, who is community banned (for the third time) from enwiki, indefinitely blocked at meta (for "intimidating behaviour/harassment"), indef blocked at nlwiki (for socking), and indef blocked at nl.wikimedia, and who hardly ever edits Commons (one edit only in 2019 before this started), came to my talk page here with this[3]: "don't import issues from wikipedia". I reverted this as a rather ironic statement, since the editor is not an active Commons editor, but has a history with me at enwiki (where I started the two latest discussions resulting in his bans).

My revert lead to him posting at the admin noticeboard, [4] (my revert of his post on my talk was apparently "indicative of a combative attitude."), where the dismissal of his complaint was met with another post[5] about "Just take it elsewhere, we have policies against importing issues." (again, rather ironic, considering...)

He then continued to attack me in other discussions, despite me staying out of all of those: [6]: "the accusation that I've been using ranges of sockpuppets originates from Fram" (not true, nlwiki blocked him for socking without any interference from me at all). He amends the post specifically to attack me further: [7]: " In fact, I remember Fram mentioning Lyrda, so I'm sure that Alexis Jazz who I've never encountered before got canvassed to take revenge, since that is Fram's way." I have never mentioned Lyrda, I haven't canvassed Alexis Jazz (whom I don't know at all), and I have been accused of many things before, but "canvassing to take revenge" (or otherwise) is not one of them. A minor potshot follows[8], another frivilous mention of me[9], and [10].

For some reason the attacks then increase again: [11]: "Someone (Fram) on a failed encyclopedia project makes up stuff about me, and suddenly half of the community thinks it their holy duty to harass me.", and [12] ("Fram has been caught lying often enough") interspersed with random comments on my talk page[13][14].

Can you please ask Guido den Broeder to stop mentioning me and contacting me, or else to start a real case about me, with evidence and so on (not just empty statements about lying, canvassing, ..., but actual diffs)? Fram (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done User warned. --A.Savin 11:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I did start a real case about Fram. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not happy about Fram using their Commons talk page as a means to evade their ban on en:wikipedia and post-by-proxy comments back to en:wikipedia about this en:wikipedia ban. Also using the talk page to comment negatively about some Wikipedians. I appreciate that Iridescent initiated this by asking for comments here, but I do think you should stop. Commons takes an extremely dim view of anyone bringing disputes on other projects over here and the above is a good example of why. You really have no reason to use your Commons talk page to talk about a ban on another project. I appreciate you have been an occasional Commons editor here, and the "Community vs WMF battle" likely has led to some Commons users and admins turning a blind eye. You have been banned by WMF from en:wikipedia and so really should stop engaging with that community on WMF projects. I take no view on the merits of your ban. I hope you can voluntarily agree to restrain your and your friend's use of your talk page to discuss Commons activities alone. And btw, if Guido den Broeder takes my post as encouragement to comment further about Fram, I would support an immediate indef block of Guido's account. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That does sound rather harsh, in comparison. But no worries, it seems that my message has finally come across despite the premature close by Fae. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't closed by Fae. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Fram was closed by User:1989. I would strongly advise Guido to make no further edits on this matter, and would support any admin applying a block since they have clearly already been warned by A.Savin. Regardless of the dispute between these editors, Fram's edits here amount to ban evasion. I would also support a block of Fram's account here, but hope they can avoid that by recognising their error, which their comment about irony suggests they do. -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Pili02

Pili02 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user posted only images in copyvio until now, and yet had a last warning months ago. It seems he/she ignored it, considering that today that account posted another photo, this time taken from Facebook. --Alex10 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello admins please take care of User:Anpanman1

Anpanman1 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

He/she has uploaded enough copyvios, and is not stopping despite warnings -- Eatcha (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Last warning sent, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Percivalfigaro

Percivalfigaro (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Same uploads as Jukomart (talk · contribs) so block evasion. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Re-upload deleted, sockpuppet indef'd. Thanks for letting us know. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello admins please take care of User:Shivabiswas22

Shivabiswas22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user is Uploading Personal images. He is not going to stop IMO despite multiple requests see his talk page -- Eatcha (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Last warning, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Knvrajesh

Knvrajesh (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
And indef'ed on en.wp for undisclosed paid editing. The topics leading to that block there are in the area of telecom, not the celebrity-pictures being uploaded here, but I cannot rule out that the editor is some third-party SEO for hire, so I don't know if the week should be extended to indef here also. But obviously will require a close eye upon their return. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

ویرایشگر878

ویرایشگر878 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done The user was twice warned before and every upload was really copyvio, so I deleted last remaining uploads and blocked him/her for a month. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Rahul sharma from Delhi

Rahul sharma from Delhi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done I blocked him/her for a month (second block) and deleted some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter don from milan

Peter don from milan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Third block, all files deleted, no useful edit. Indef. Yann (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Axel Fabricio Acosta

Axel Fabricio Acosta (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done 3 months block: huge list of copyvios, no useful edit, 2nd block. Next block should be indef. Yann (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

myexbackcoach.com / Lee Wilson spam

Three separate users have recently uploaded stock images with text relating to "limerence". The descriptions of these images have all contained links promoting "myexbackcoach.com". The owner of that site is a guy named Lee Wilson, who has a background in SEO. Given that, I suspect they aren't done yet, so it would be nice if the web site could be added to a black list. Since it is difficult to imagine that there will ever be an image which can illustrate the concept of "limerence", perhaps File:limerence.jpg and File:limerence.png could be blacklisted?

Accounts involved:

Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: File:Limerence.png: Clear case of DW w missing source. Google doesn't find it but Yandex and TinEye have a lot of hits. Original image seems to be from shutterstock. In addition clear case of spam, linking to the same web address. Here indirectly by one more hop via yt. --Achim (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done: File deleted and users blocked per spam only accounts. Btw: Registrant's info @ publicdomainregistry.com/whois is hidden via privacyprotect.org. --Achim (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55: Thanks. The latest account is User:Limerthing089. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done, thanks for notifying. --Achim (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55: And now User:Dayfater. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done. --Achim (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Achim55: Thanks. The newest account is User:Honeyshahq. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
And look - here's one from 2017: File:Get your ex girlfriend.png! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  Done for both. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Just for fun, here's an even older one from a different "relationship expert": File:How-to-get-your-ex-back-tips.gif. This one is too simple to be copyrighted, but the link to the spammy domain was left (even though it wasn't the actual source). I fixed it. Looks like Lee Wilson just borrowed his shtick form someone else. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
And one more, from 2017: File:Get.png. Looks like spammers infested Commons long ago. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Achim55: Here's the newest: File:Limerence cure.png. And some bonus spam from the same uploader: File:Protein Powder.png. (True to form, the latter is someone else's work, being a cropped and rotated version of File:Hemp cacao nibs.jpg) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done, thanks for pinging. --Achim (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

DRIS92 vs. Hanooz

DRIS92 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Removes files from the deletion request. Hanooz 11:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@DRIS92: Do not remove anything from a deletion request. You can mention which files are OK, according to you, eventually with <s></s>. And do not add comment in the talk page, just add them at the bottom of the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: This is one of the files that DRIS92 removes from the deletion request. I provided another resource of this file here before their edit wars. Hanooz 11:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: This is one exemple of false informations Hanooz. He claimed that the photo published elsewhere (in non-free websites) but the source exist in page is this at bottom of site is written "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."

Hanooz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) Delition Request based on false information deletion request --DRIS92 (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@DRIS92: Please do not strike other people's writings. You can vote on the DR page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WLP socks and disruptive uploads

  1. FatGayWhore (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  2. Cracked2345 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  3. Sikderonline (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  4. Sparx_The_Fox (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  5. Samuel Siddiqui (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

These accounts are disrupting the WLP campaign. Suggest blocks and nuke uploads. @Pharos: FYI, and thanks to Hmxhmx for keeping their eyes open. @Green Giant: you may be interested in taking a deeper look for relationships to LTAs for one or more of these as highly likely socks for users with a fixation on LGBT+ disruption. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting them. I have locked all five from editing plus a sleeper at SamSiddiqui, and globally blocked their underlying IP addresses for a month each. Please feel free to drop me a line if there is more disruption. --Green Giant (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Орфорак

Орфорак (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Recreates deleted content just out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done. The second block is for a month. Taivo (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Obakeng-electrobux

Obakeng-electrobux (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Out of scope images and copyvios, no useful edit. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done - Эlcobbola talk 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Meninas sereias

Meninas sereias (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

  Done Last warning sent, all copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Terminature

Terminature (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 7 days. --Mhhossein talk 14:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Lipeh Spanic

Lipeh Spanic (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked by Didym. Yann (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Humayon Ahmed Emon

Please block Humayon Ahmed Emon (talk · contribs). Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Indef., as sock of Srp Humayon Ahmed, all pages deleted. Yann (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Verdy p

User:Verdy p introduced [15] a very major change to {{Lang-VP}} on 19:13, 25 June 2019‎. Next day, I opposed with this change by opening [16] a thread on the template talk page. Their statements are contradictory, and they do not respond to my suggestions (using the 6 official languages of UN). Instead, they just undo [17] [18] every edit I make on the template. Their block log indicates [19] they have recently been blocked for disruptive editing. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a month (3rd block), edit on template reverted. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m not a Verdy fan, nor here nor in the other two unrelated online projects I had the misfortune to cross paths with him in the past two decades, but one month (as opposed to, say, three days) seems unreasonably long. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    Their previous block period for disruptive editing was one week, and it apparently did not work. It makes no sense to reduce the block period for commiting the same offence, and then expect it to work this time. IMO, the period of one month is perfectly proportionate and appropriate. 4nn1l2 (talk)
  • This is a content dispute between two users where we see one of them posting negative insinuations about another, additionally harassing them on user talk: Verdy_p. Yann supported a friendly party with his block and rollback privileges – should we expect anything else? Of course, a sysop bold enough to overturn Yann will earn high esteem from me. Or, as an alternative, 4nn1l2 has to be blocked too for edit warring and escalating petty content disputes to a serious conflict. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Incnis Mrsi: Justify your accusation of "harassing", or I will open a thread at this page to topic ban you from participating in ANs where your contributions are more often than not inflammatory. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    A hostile attitude towards Verdy_p by 4nn1l2 is obvious to an experienced Wikimedian. I don’t care how 4nn1l2 estimates my contributions, frankly speaking – I have a lot of people serving as moral references for me, whose opinion is important as a feedback for my conduct. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    Moreover. The template is coded in such crooked way that one can’t see old revisions in the standard diff interface. If even me, Incnis Mrsi, hardly can understand actions and intentions of the two, then how might a reasonable person defer solution of the conflict to this noticeboard? The latter is known for its revert–block–ignore culture. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    Correction: it was Verdy_p who stuffed the template with confusing (and somewhere erroneous) <includeonly> tags. Verdy_p’s edits had to be reverted on the ground that introduced an untraceable mess into the code. The lengthy discussion on working languages in various countries has little importance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at Verdy p edits and his comments on the talkpage (after the block), the block seems reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • See also what Very p created on Meta: m:Requests for comment/Admin role on Commons (inventing or changing unilaterally the community policies). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

JuniorJunior

JuniorJunior (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Uploads nuked and user blocked for 3 days. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 09:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

LTA:ISECHIKA 201906

Please block and nuke uploads per ja:LTA:ISECHIKA.--Roy17 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Jakeirapeak

It appears that this user has returned after a one month block for uploading >200 copyright violating images, and has returned to upload more of the same type. I probably should have checked their talk page before opening a DR, and this may be an instance of en:WP:YOUNG, but we still can't very well have a user mass uploading these problematic files and refusing to communicate. GMGtalk 17:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done Seeing the ratio of deleted files vs. useful edits, indef. block. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban User:Incnis Mrsi from participating in ANs

Incnis Mrsi is banned from editing COM:AN and its subpages for a period of six months. If necessary (including starting new threads), they can contact any other editor to ask them to post on their behalf. Incnis Mrsi is restricted to using only that account. Failure to adhere to these restrictions and expected norms of behaviour on Commons may result in further blocks. Incnis Mrsi may ask after three months for a lift of this sanction, which would be subject to community discussion and consensus at COM:AN/U. — Racconish 💬 13:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) regularly contributes to administrators' noticeboards with non-constructive bitter comments. I propose to topic ban them from participating in AN‌ threads for one year.

Many of their reports end up archived while they have been left unresponded to (some examples from recent archives: [20] [21] [22] [23]). This has a reason. They often criticize admins bitterly and condescendingly. As a result, few admins would like to engage with them. For a while, I tried to respond to their requests and engage with them positively [24] [25], but I was proved wrong. They attacked me unprovoked with an uncivil comment [26]. And now they just accused [27] me of harassing a user completely unfoundedly. I asked them to justify their accusation, but they did not do so. Baseless accusations of harassments should not be taken lightly as they are real crimes in many countries.

Here are some examples of their hostile attitude. While none of these may be considered enough for a topic ban individually, they show a non-constructive pattern of behaviour collectively:

  • They have recently been blocked for making a toxic atmosphere [28]
  • Multiple warnings on their current talk page by different admins [29] "you must stop playing games on our noticeboards, like here" [30], [31], [32]
  • "smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply" [33]
  • "I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect" [34]
  • "HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops", "although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene" [35]
  • "The JuTa’s syndrome appears to be contagious" [36]
  • It appears non-Westerners are not trustworthy according to them: "Moreover, I know that their landline IP range covers a large area in Iran hundreds km across. Please, do not refer me to trials conducted in Farsi wikis. You are a Westerner and very likely will be impartial, which is not the case for Persians." [37]. Now I understand why they wrote " “our” check-users, exclusively Western" on my RFA [38].
  • ruwiki issues [39] "a guy from ru.Wikipedia whose community is bent on pettifogging about who and where did post something" "Let them do it within their cultural ghetto" [40]
  • "before firing his admin shotgun" [41]
  • "unlikely any sysop in a sane mind would block it" [42]
  • "Third sysop joined this DoS attack on the protection policy" [43]
  • "not really detrimental compared to demonstrable impotence of the administration with respect to enforcement of blocks." [44]
  • "This site obviously demonstrates a preferential treatment for certain person who is formally exiled in the strongest form" [45]
  • "Seasoned vandal fighters, where are you?" "Sysops watching this noticeboard failed to demonstrate any diligence in reasonable time." [46]
  • "but it’s worrying that a sysop can’t see a large red area in Special:Log/A947" [47]
  • Needless hostility: [48] [49]

I believe their ban from AN threads is the right approach to deal with this user for protecting both the community and the project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC) More links were added. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. This user is not an admin, so the damage they can make is negligible; unless the causes for cencern escalate, the only lasting damage will be to their own reputation.
  2. When there’s conflict envolving this user s/he is always polemic, but often also right. I may dislike the tone of their voice, but it would be a net loss to have it silenced.
  3. There’s nothing in the list of complaints against this user that could not be said also about an admin or another. And since admins become untouchable, it would be a masquerade to demand from simple users what cannot be asked from admins.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
jdx "bright representative of kiss-up-kick down culture" is a classical case of name-calling. T CellsTalk 17:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I feel torn, even though I was sometimes "targeted". Incnis Mrsi's contributions, especially in the meta area, are often useful, likely due to his insight and language capabilities. On the other hand, as already described above and below, there is the less constructive, sometimes aggressive tone/wording etc. of his comments.
    IMO, 1 year might be unnecessarily long, if we intend this ban to be educative, i.e. to allow Incnis Mrsi to do some introspection and to work on his attitude/wording towards others, admins or anybody on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about a topic ban for Incnis Mrsi

Responding to the links:

  • [51]: can't say if nobody responded. The second DR was closed while that notice was still up. The first one was closed 2 days after the notice was archived, but it was a complicated DR.
  • Seemingly in response to [52], Yann blocked Gustmeister and Taivo protected User talk:Bookworm8899.
  • No admin seems to have responded to [53], indeed. So because admins don't process a perfectly reasonable report, Incnis must be silenced?
  • [54] was possibly unfortunate, but should probably be seen as an example of a vandalistic username. Incnis may have used 4nn1l2 for the example because 4nn1l2 started that discussion. Going with COM:AGF, I wouldn't seek punishment for just this. Also, this was not on an administrators' board.
  • [55] I didn't follow the template discussion. I don't know.
  • "you must stop playing games on our noticeboards, like here": Incnis made a valid point about the concerned user not having been notified. I assume Jcb previously speedy closed a report for that reason, triggering Incnis to ping him.
  • [56] not sure this was actually a personal attack
  • [57] okay that was a shit move
  • [58] that copyvio tag was nonsense and it was in use so apparently not out of scope, converting it to DR doesn't seem useful. I can't comment on the copyright status, I don't know what "source page" JuTa was referring to.
  • "smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply" [59] Smart admin candidates on this site are in short supply, but that was a flame.
  • "I’m not sure a random sysop browsing Media missing permission as of 7 May 2019 may be trusted in this respect" [60] I wholeheartedly agree!
  • "HutheMeow – a case study in the school for abusers run by Commons sysops", "although some Commoners will fight back, sysops are generally lazy and won’t intervene" [61] Incnis is agitated when seeing smaller but potentially more damaging cases don't get as much attention as larger but relatively harmless cases. This is indeed something abusers could exploit.
  • "The JuTa’s syndrome appears to be contagious" [62] verydy p marked something as minor that shouldn't be minor, JuTa marks every edit as minor. Humor much? It may not be the best joke ever, but is that a crime?
  • It appears non-Westerners are not trustworthy according to them: "Moreover, I know that their landline IP range covers a large area in Iran hundreds km across. Please, do not refer me to trials conducted in Farsi wikis. You are a Westerner and very likely will be impartial, which is not the case for Persians." [63]. Now I understand why they wrote " “our” check-users, exclusively Western" on my RFA [64]. I've seen some doubtful stuff from the Persian CU department..

I think a topic ban is a net loss. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: More links were added and will be added. There is a reason why admins tend to ignore them. They often speak in a condescending "I'm-smarter-than-you" manner. Nobody likes to be treated like that, so admins often try to avoid engaging with them and the user feels like "am I ignored on Commons too?".
It is one thing to be doubtful about the quality of investigations done by the Persian CU department (so am I sometimes), but it is another thing to segregate users as Westerners and non-Westerners and state that Persians are "very likely" not "impartial". The second one is an attack directed towards a group of contributors. It is like to say the people of Ruritania are too incompetent to hold any responsibilities. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: no need for more links, after their response here I'm not going to bother anymore. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is one of the few users prepared to speak out against corrupt and openly hostile administrators. As far as I'm concerned, s/he should be awarded a medal, not treated like a pariah. AshFriday (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Nach meiner Erfahrung ist er einer der sehr wenigen Benutzer, die herablassend und besserwisserisch andere Benutzer angehen. Er führt sich auf, als sei er ein Ober-Admin und muß alle maßregeln. --Ralf Roletschek 22:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @4nn1l2: I would actually be happy to proxy for Incnis Mrsi (and I think maybe Fæ as well, and maybe AshFriday) for cases I understand and agree with. Could that be a solution? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: If you mean copying their remarks verbatim, there is a problem. But if you want to just transfer the gist of their remarks in your own words, I can live with that. However, their disrespectful and inflammatory language should not be tolerated on the noticeboards. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    @4nn1l2: I would only copy verbatim if I agree with that. I'm not going to rewrite, for example, a neutral sock report just because Incnis wrote it. In other cases, when needed, I may rewrite the message in my own words or alter Incnis' original message. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: I can live with that. Neutral sock reports can be copied verbatim. In any case, the full responsibility is with you (or the proxies). 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    Stop beating a dead horse, Alexis. About three support votes – a no-go for any foreseeable duration of time, let alone one year. Move on to solve your problems and drop mine from your mind. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    @4nn1l2: Well, I was going to ask for a tiny bit of leeway in case I'd overlook something, but I guess it doesn't matter. Incnis doesn't want a proxy. And I don't understand how I'm beating a dead horse by offering one. And Incnis, I'm mystified as to why you would link my LR request. Now people are practically begging me to re-apply. What's the problem? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rodrigo.Argenton

I have blocked Rodrigo for two weeks. The long-term trend of attacking editors - particularly those who nominate his uploads for deletion - is unacceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

So... more of my attention you want so badly
For those that do not know about the Jeff love about me, let me do a list:
  • Random warnings and bad used of template at my talk page:
  • Blind delete support in files that I uploaded.
    This is a big list and I have things to finish today, so a summary:
    • He blindly ask for deletion when he sees my name
      As here
      Sometimes the sysop do not check the discussion and the file is wrongly delete:
      as here
      As this occurs so often that in the last time, probably to not make so clear that was him, he sign as a IP:
      [67]
  • And now the crème de la crème, he said that I was offending him, that this is personal attack, no my friends; this is a personal attack:
    • I'll quote: "we don't need your photos, either." [68]
That's it, I have things to do, so you are welcome to see how many positive interactions he have with me in the last months.
I request to a sysop to check his threats before, he not only closed saying that was a non sense request, but after he did the same for another request, and when I questioned him here, he reverted and block for a whole week, and you did nothing.
Jeff G. already did this hunting with other volunteers before, and you let this happen...
How about an interaction ban? To me back to my uploads and do not have to deal with him?
Peace!
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Wut.. it's true. You weren't even here. The full "we don't need your photos" quote is "If you can't or won't provide such information, we don't need your photos, either". Doesn't sound as strong.. Not too nice though. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The edit today is not civil and not acceptable. For the second time today, I find it helpful to post a link to Paul Graham's essay How to disagree. It is typical of RTA to operate at the very bottom of the "disagreement hierarchy" when arguing either at DR (here) or at Featured Pictures discussions. The link Jeff gave is a good example. I think RTA merits a block for persistent incivility. I agree with Alexis, though, that the comment ending with "we don't need your photos either" is an over-hostile way of making a point about licence or copyright information. To a user who mainly contributes through taking and uploading their own images, and organising academic events to make useful images for Commons/Wikipedia, that comes across as a non-vulgar way of telling them to fuck off. Anyway, RTA's reaction to being criticised is often to try to make trouble for the person criticising and so let's deal with the actual topic: RTA. I don't support interaction bans on Commons, and they are frequently requested, as here, in order to censor critics. This isn't the first time RTA has used "How about an interaction ban" as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Time for a block. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at Rodrigo's history a bit, he seems to clash mostly just with Jeff G. A two-way IBAN may actually be sensible, at least we could try it. And as we have started to use Commons:Editing restrictions again, why not.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Well that's just the recent person. RTA clashed with User:Wilfredor to the degree that Wilfredor accepted an interaction ban out of frustration. RTA has in the past suggested such ban with me, because I've been a critic and called him out when he has attacked others. Essentially anyone he gets into dispute with becomes a target of crude personal attacks and ad-hominems. Those doing administrative functions (whether admins or not) need to be able to carry them out (such as creating DR) without getting personally attacked in response. An IBAN punishes both editors equally and censors a critic. In the two diffs presented by Jeff here, there is clearly one person misbehaving to a degree that is quite simply unacceptable and so we should not any longer put up with it. I don't think Jeff's behaviour here has been great, but it certainly hasn't reached a level requiring a ban. For example, Jeff, the last time "removing warnings from talk pages" was discussed, there was IIRC clear consensus that we should not care. By removing the warning, the user acknowledges their receipt. So I don't think you should use that template. And RTA has a point about using newbie copyvio templates on a long term user who has uploaded a lot of perfectly fine material. I think this is more a problem that Jeff can have a tin ear for what he writes sometimes, and perhaps needs to put himself into their shoes more. But, this a general issue with Jeff and I don't see it specific or serious enough to warrant any sanction like a ban, and think he's generally willing to take advice on board. RTA's persistent personal attacks and incivility towards others has gone on unchecked for too long. -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, Rodrigo's original edit to File:WikiEdu 2019 - Commons the hidden gem.pdf sets a terrible example of insufficient attribution.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Strongly oppose any action against Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. We have more important things to deal with than perceived "civility" issues. AshFriday (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@AshFriday: I felt personally attacked. Who is this "We" you presume to write for?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: If you're refering to me, please note that I did not mention you by name, therefore there was no personal attack. By "We" I am referring to the general Commons community. If you wish to discuss this matter further, I request that you approach me on my talk page, as we may become side-tracked from the main topic under discussion in this incident report. Thanks for your message. AshFriday (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@AshFriday: I was referring to RTA. What gives you the authority to write for "the general Commons community"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I will not discuss the matter here, as I believe it to be irrelevant to the matter currently under consideration. As I said, if you contact me on my talk page, I will answer any questions you have. Please note that I am signing out for the time being, so I will not be able to post any replies until tomorrow. Thanks for your message. AshFriday (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I really want to understand how blocking me will be beneficial to the community.

I'm basically an uploader, that sometimes help volunteers in Help desk/Esplanada (Village Pump (pt)), and Photography critiques.

Different from both you, I don't go after a volunteer, and intervene in every action that they took. I'm only react to this modus operandi that you, Colin and Jeff, have, that's go after the contribution of the volunteer, in more the one sphere, and negativize the volunteers work, saying that I do not work for FP, or spamming warnings, and supporting deletions that was not proper proposed.

It's quite simple, I handle pretty well criticism, but a bully to a point that I no more can propose FPC, I no more can upload files from an import requested by the community, is not a thing that I can handle. This time that I'm wasting here texting, I could be uploading files.

And you do not know the real impact of this blocks and this requests. I will probably have another Grant requested denied because of this Jcb's block and because of this AN/U. And the consequence of that? I have already 3 institutions, that have opened their doors to Wikimedia, I have more than 300'000 historical scientific papers to be digitalised, more than thousands holotypes to photograph, and do not how may species to register, photograph, upload. I'm fighting hard to find another photograph that could handle this files, because I'm a target of this harassments and by the consequence this institutions, that are very fragile in terms of security, can not receive a digitalization project, that by themselves they will never have the capability to run a digitalisation project by the lack of money. I already did a whole museum using my own money, but I do not have this luxury, I even can not afford the daily transportation to the museum, neither the museums...

I'll quote what I wrote in my last grant request:

"Brazil is a third world country, and museums are not a priority, for that reason it's quite common to see thefts (i.e. São Paulo Museum of Art#Theft (2007), Museu da Chácara do Céu (2006)), fires (i.e. National Museum of Brazil#2018 fire, Instituto Butantan#2010 fire), floods (Museu Casa do Pontal (2016)) ...
And the new federal government (2019-) already cut 30% of the investments in universities (some light about this question), all the biggest universities in Brazil, including USP, are public schools, and almost all the biggest museums are under a public university administration. They also cut scholarships [69], that maintain most of the museum researchers, and students, that make the museum engine keep going...
As a result, some museums will close (as some hospitals), and digitalisation that was already costly for them, will be impossible to accomplish. In this catastrophic scenario, any digitalisation initiate could be the only register of items, so it's utterly important to have this serious digitalisation projects running in Brazil, especially now."

And you are here trying to stop my work for personal reasons, that I can not fully understand.

Why I am so important to you both that you need to keep track and include comments every time that my name appears? Why you can not let me do my volunteer work? What bothers you both?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, you are just trying to change the subject. Your images, academic and museum contributions to the project are recognised but quite irrelevant wrt to your behaviour. You might want to read the WMF board response to the Fram ban en:Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Board statement and m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/November 2016 - Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces. Your behaviour, when you are upset with another user or are criticised, descends to a level of insults, and persistent personal attacks. You react to a DR being created on your work with hostility rather than accepting it as a process and discussion to be respected and an opportunity to fix and improve. Your behaviour towards The Photographer at FPC led him to ask for you to be banned from interacting with him, and he offered to reciprocate. Every time your uncivil behaviour gets accepted and nothing done about it, well, we can see the direction things are moving with WMF. If Commons can't deal with toxic behaviour, then WMF will. And they won't be dishing out short blocks in the hope you get the message. -- Colin (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"toxic behaviour [...] And they won't be dishing out short blocks in the hope you get the message."
toxic behaviour as:
"In criticism of Poco, Colin uses 'prima donna', 'go take a hike', 'vandalising' and 'sabotage' language." - Charles (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (available here)
I'm not the one here going after a volunteer, and even when the volunteer request to you stop, you not only do not stop, but also call it a censorship, and bring back a theme that the volunteer could not defend himself as a community decision. So you bring back and back, knowing that the volunteer will respect the interaction ban, and will not comment on it. You distorts the reality, as you did here:
Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_21#Voting_issues_with_Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton_and_Joalpe
As you does here:"led him to ask for you to be banned from interacting with him"
As I, I requested the ban, I, eu, yo, io, je, 我, 私... And again, I will respect the IB, and do not comment any further on this subject.
This distortions made me request an interaction ban with you, but you prefer hunt me and do not leave me alone, and keep bullying and commenting, and creating conspiracies theories...
So whom is hostile here?
"Your behaviour, when you are upset with another user or are criticised, descends to a level of insults, and persistent personal attacks."
That's not me.
Again, why I'm so important to you both that you do not let me alone?
How a blocking me will be beneficial to the community? How block a uploader that rarely interact with others here will be any good to the community?
The block tool is a device to protect the community and are you trying to use as a punishment to people that you do (not) like?
No one tag you, and you are here, again, just because my name appeared, why?
Why you do not stop?
Can you explain this obsession?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Miros Dursselev

Miros Dursselev (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Doesn't seem to have understood the reason behind the previous block: continues to upload files related to es:Daniel Romero-Abreu. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not done His last upload of a copyrighted file was on the 27 May 2019, and hasn't been repeated since. ANU not necessary. --Ruthven (msg) 16:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Persistent upload of files from Flickr that are already available on commons

Mohammed Galib Hasan uploaded numerous files, amount is in the hundreds, from Flickr to Commons. All of which were requested to be deleted by me at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mohammed Galib Hasan. Jcb deleted all of them and gave the user a warning. Following that, JuTa also spotted this and reminded the user, as seen here. As of now, I nominated another 380 files for DR (uploaded between 14:44, 29 June 2019 and 14:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)). Out of those 380 files, a large majority was already deleted by Jcb in the previous 2 DR. 大诺史 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have told the user to stop transferring files from Flickr, because they where flooding us with duplicates. Today they reuploaded all the hundreds of duplicates that I deleted yesterday. Conclusion: 1 week block. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
agreed. --JuTa 23:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

DenghiùComm

How do we get category mover rights and then procede to do really bad stuff like this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved back: a) his certificate of birth doesn't read Charles, b) per d:Q45068 the majority of articles use Carl, c) given reason coherence with the other sister cats is nonsense and doesn't qualify, d) regarding finding and accessing media the move has no benefit. See also this disc. --Achim (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Serge: It's not a problem of mover rights: If the dest cat page does already exist (redirecting page after a cat move) it has to be deleted temporarily. That can only be done by an admin. The cleanest way would be {{Move}} but that might take weeks until it's done, {{Bad name}} may lead to an unwanted deletion of the redirect. Either ask an admin for the move or tag the dest cat {{Speedydelete|temp del to make way for a move}} and perform the move yourself when it is deleted. --Achim (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Profesor tm

Profesor tm (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Sock of Dirham Prof (talk · contribs). Uploads same stuff.--Roy17 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Delete Category:Persatuan Tenis Meja Seluruh Indonesia Kota Prabumulih per id:Persatuan Tenis Meja Seluruh Indonesia Kota Prabumulih.--Roy17 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Suwanda Sitorus.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nine Angle Wiki

Please block Nine Angle Wiki (talk · contribs) for promotion only, also delete files once necessary. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hm, not sure what to do, I'm tending to AGF. On the other hand, The Crusader 1973 (talk · contribs) looks like a sock. --Achim (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This is our own click. It could be coz we inserted our logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Crusader 1973 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Crusader 1973: Who is "we"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete user page

Link below is a page i want to delete, but i don't know how. please help me kind soul. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.240.217.67 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rubens-schmitz&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.240.217.67 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not done There is no user page for User:Rubens-schmitz. The user talk page will not be deleted. --Majora (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

FPC contribution changes

Can somebody please keep an eye on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bryce Amphitheater from Sunset Point 2019.jpg? Somebody is trying to change my vote from "oppose" to "support". I'll be AFK for the next day or so. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done I semi-protected this page for a week, and blocked this account. Obviously a thrown-away account. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jcb

On 28 April, Elisfkc added "{{Licensereview}} Category:Files from 500px needing review" to 1336 files. Elisfkc stopped when Rodrigo.Argenton told them to stop. These license review requests made no sense. There are 108K+ files in Category:Photos imported with import-500px and surely Elisfkc wasn't going to tag them all with VFC. These files where imported with a tool, they are about as safe as any Flickr file with a bot review. If the 500px files need a review, it should be done by a bot.

Rodrigo.Argenton, instead of going to edit war (edit warring with VFC is bad idea), reported this on Elisfkc massive edit to request a mass reversal. Which was promptly closed by Jcb stating "Abuse of noticeboard". Maybe Rodrigo.Argenton should have waited a bit longer or posted on COM:AN instead of COM:ANU, but.. abuse? I don't see how. This was a valid request that should have been fulfilled. (and which I have now done, while the damage was able to accumulate for 2 months) Rodrigo understandably didn't take this for an answer and reported "Jcb abuse of sysop post." No wikilink to the archives, because Jcb used rollback. Guess Jcb doesn't like criticism? And to make sure that no more complaints would follow, Jcb blocked Rodrigo.Argenton for a week.

The damage: 213 files have actually been reviewed at Elisfkc's request while the files were sitting in the queue. Just a waste of time.

Jcb's defense was "The user was blocked over this and not a single admin (or other user) has stated to disagree with the block. This was an ongoing abuse that ended after my intervention. Case closed for me."

No admin declined Rodrigo's unblock request either. And that unblock request was pretty much the most visible thing about this block as Jcb rolled back the complaint against him. I wouldn't expect any admins that did see the unblock request to respond if they weren't familiar with the history. So I hereby ask: please, can some uninvolved admins take a look and say if this block and rolling back of a complaint were justified? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I intervented in an ongoing disruption after warnings. The user was indeed blocked and filed an unblock request. The fact that not a single admin felt like granting the unblock request tells enough, there are several admins monitoring this request. The disruption ended after my intervention, case closed. There is no justification at all to reopen such a case after three months. Jcb (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
A few points on Jcb's actions:
  1. special:diff/347626246 is not justified.
  2. special:diff/347627402 was conflict of interest. It should be decided by an uninvolved user.
  3. Because of error #1, time and effort were wasted to review 200+ files between April and July 2019. (In comparison, 51 were reviewed in 2018.)
Yet Jcb's response shows no sign of regret.--Roy17 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: ..and no admin declined the request either, or commented on the request, or.. anything at all. I wasn't here in April, otherwise I would have probably made some noise back then. Regardless of whether or not these actions were justified (in my opinion they weren't, but let's hear some more voices), to an outsider this use of rollback to erase a complaint and blocking the complaining user would surely look like an admin who is sweeping the criticism under the rug. That's reason enough to address this. If other admins side with you in considering this an appropriate action, at least that would make it clear that this was no act of corruption.
@Roy17: the files from 2018 actually needed a license review, at least those that were uploaded by hand before the import tool existed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It did exist in 2018. 13 of 51 reviewed in 2018 had /archive/ in source. 18 of 18 with /archive/ in source were reviewed from Jan to Mar 2019. 217 of 217 were from Apr to today, thanks to Elisfkc and in part Jcb.--Roy17 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I was mistaken about the dates. Either way, the number of unneeded reviews ran rampant from April until today. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Pleas, do read my comment at the section about me, this block not only stopped me for a week, this also have other consequences, any future grant request for a GLAM project will be denied because of the Grants:Friendly space expectations.

"There is no justification at all to reopen such a case after three months"

This will impact me in any request for years, and I'm not overestimating. It took 20 s to you make this action, will take me years handling with the consequences. At least one year (or more) from the block to the embargo of grant request follow off. Than, they open the grant request two time per year, and if approved, at least 6 months. So, at lest 2,5 years to a GLAM initiative where I photograph.

Thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

DRs

Bbdyn and Bubbasax filing duplicate DRs. Many problems with todays DRs. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Comment I wonder why the 2 mentioned users decided to nominate their uploads for DR 2 years later. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fchtravels

Spam only.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A.dani

Morgankevinj

NO ACTION:

There is no reason to delete the logs. User:Kai3952 is allowed to remove the message from their talk page. Autopatrol right is not something that one can choose to have or not to have; it's upon the community. Given the discussion at Commons:Requests_for_rights/Denied/Autopatrolled/2018#Kai3952, I believe User:Kai3952 should not be trusted with any rights. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just discovered he leave an indelible record on my user page( see: here). I think that I have been punished.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case, the administrator would have to delete their history to eliminate the record.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the meaning of the autopatrol 'right'. Edits of users without it are checked better, because we don't know their intentions. As soon as an administrator thinks that this extra check is not needed, they will grant this right, just to lower the workload of the people who are doing this additional check. That's all. It has no effect on your abilities to edit, your edits are just trusted more easily. So actually it's a compliment, not a punishment. Nothing to worry about. Jcb (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paul.schrepfer

With reference to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current requests#File:Le temps efface la mémoire.jpg, User talk:Paul.schrepfer#Liberte de_panorama and User talk:Taivo#Le temps efface la mémoire: Yann and myself have been trying in vain to give appropriate explanations to this user on his talk page. He has been banned for 1 year from deletion discussions on the French Wikipedia for not respecting Don't be a jerk. I suggest he should be warned to avoid developing the same kind of behaviour here.
Traduction : Yann et moi-même avons tenté en vain de donner les explications appropriées à ce contributeur sur sa page de discussion. Il a déjà été interdit de contribuer pendant 1 an aux PàS sur le projet français pour ne pas avoir respecté "Ne jouez pas au con". Je suggère qu'il soit averti de ne pas développer le même type de comportement ici. — Racconish 💬 11:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Racconish, c'est facile, de ta position, d'aller fouiller dans le passé des utilisateurs et de mettre ça en avant, tout en affichant une apparence de neutralité, pour étayer ta thèse qui ne tient pas debout, je ne vais pas refaire le film, mais je pense sincèrement avoir été banni sans raison valable, sans doute n'aurais-je pas du répondre aux attaques que je subissais. Le fond de la présente affaire, puisque tu en fais une affaire est le suivant : tu as fait supprimer une image sous un mauvais prétexte et refuses de le reconnaître en te braquant sur les mêmes mauvais prétextes et en refusant le dialogue. Je demande par la présente que ton statut d'administrateur te sois retiré pour usage impropre ! Il me semble que j'ai le droit de discuter sur ma page de discussion. Salutations/ - C'est moi (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Traduction automatique, sans aucune garantie autre que celle de GOOGLE : Racconish, it's easy, position, you want to go beyond the users and put forward, all in appearance, the appearance of neutrality, for those who are not I'm not going to redo the film but I sincerely believe that I have been banished, no doubt valid, no doubt. You are here to make it this image is a self made in a old post and a back on the back one has pointing a old pretend and dialogue and dialogue. I request that your administrator status be withdrawn for improper use! It seems to me that I have the right to discuss on a page of discussion. Greetings. - C'est moi (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Je demande également que soit restaurée l'image en question qui ne posait aucun problème de droit d'auteur et dont le sens était particulièrement fort, tout à fait dans la ligne des recommandations qui indiquent que les images doivent pouvoir être utilisées à des fins pédagogiques.
Traduction automatique, sans aucune garantie autre que celle de GOOGLE : I also request that the image in question, which posed no copyright problem and whose meaning was particularly strong, be restored to the line of recommendations that indicate that the images must be able to be used for educational purposes. - C'est moi (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Pour ce qui est des "explications" de Yann qu'évoque Racconish, voilà de quoi il s'agit : @Paul.schrepfer: Cela ne fonctionne pas comme ça. Le texte que vous citez ci-dessus implique que les « œuvres d'architecture et de sculpture » sont exemptées de l'application du droit d'auteur, mais pas les autres œuvres, quand il existe une liberté de panorama, comme en Allemagne. Le problème est justement qu'il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France. Cordialement, Yann (d) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC). Donc, si je comprends bien son intervention, quand il y a une liberté de Panorama, comme en Allemagne, les oeuvres architecturales et sculpturales ne sont plus protégées, mais les autres le sont ????? Mais mon sujet est en France et n'est ni une oeuvre architecturale ni une oeuvre sculpturale. Yann est donc totalement à côté du sujet. Et si on veut considérer ce panneau comme une "oeuvre", ce qui serait une manière extraordinaire de voir les choses, cette "oeuvre" est illégale ! Et il est d'usage constant qu’une oeuvre graphique illicite ne bénéficie pas de la protection accordée par la loi sur la propriété littéraire et artistique. Il est évident que le propriétaire du panneau n'a pas donné l'autorisation de réaliser une telle "oeuvre", qui aurait pu cautionner un tel étalage d'ignorance ? Sa reproduction est donc parfaitement légale. D'autant plus qu'il ne s'agissait pas pour moi de copier ou de m'approprier cette "oeuvre", mais d'illustrer un problème sérieux et de plus en plus fréquent. Et il me semble que Racconish, avant d'en demander la suppression sans aucune discussion préalable, aurait du avoir la courtoisie de venir m'en parler, j'aurais pu lui expliquer. Cordialement. - C'est moi (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Traduction automatique, sans aucune garantie autre que celle de GOOGLE : As for the "explanations" of Yann that evokes Racconish, this is what it is: (Please provide the title of the work), @Paul.schrepfer: It does not work like that. The text you quote above implies that "works of architecture and sculpture" are exempted from the application of copyright, but not other works, when there is a freedom of panorama, as in Germany. The problem is precisely that there is no freedom of panorama in France. Sincerely, Yann (d) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC). So, if I understand his intervention, when there is a Panorama freedom, as in Germany, the architectural and sculptural works are no longer protected, but the others are protected? But my subject is in France and is neither an architectural work nor a sculptural work. Yann is totally beside the subject. And if we want to consider this panel as a "work", which would be an extraordinary way of seeing things, this "work" is illegal! And it is common practice that an illicit graphic work does not benefit from the protection granted by the law on literary and artistic property. It is obvious that the owner of the panel did not give permission to carry out such a "work", which could have supported such a display of ignorance? Its reproduction is perfectly legal. Especially since it was not for me to copy or to appropriate this "work", but to illustrate a serious problem and more and more frequent. And it seems to me that Racconish, before asking for its removal without any prior discussion, should have had the courtesy to come and talk to me, I could have explained. Cordially. - C'est moi (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Paul.schrepfer: En supposant que le panneau était permanent et à l'extérieur en France lorsque vous l'avez photographié, puisqu'il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France, l'artiste est titulaire des droits d'auteur sur l'œuvre sous-jacente. Qu'est-ce qui vous donne le droit d'autoriser votre photographie DW/fr du panneau comme étant Own work sans tenir compte des droits de cet artiste?
Assuming that the panel was permanent and outdoors in France when you photographed it, since there is no freedom of panorama in France, the artist holds copyright on the underlying work. What gives you the right to license your DW photograph of the panel as Own work with no consideration of the rights of that artist?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a matter of photo copyright here (the copyright of the work represented in File:Le temps efface la mémoire.jpg belongs to www.reseau-stan.com: we cannot publish this map without a permission from the company), but of the user's behaviour, if I understand correctly. I would formally warn the user not to upload such photos when the work is located in a country without FoP, like France. Reactively asking the deletion of all similar files is not a mature response.
Traduction manuelle: @Paul.schrepfer: La question du droit d'auteur est claire dans les pays sans "liberté de panorama" (comme la France) et a été débattue maintes fois: une oeuvre originale récente ne peut pas être téléchargée sur Commons sans l'autorisation écrite des ayant droits, même si elle est sur le sol public. Le débat est clos sur ce point. Demander la supression de toutes les images semblables par réaction n'est pas un comportement mûr, car non constructif, et n'est pas tolléré ici. Je suis confiant que ce genre de réaction ne sera plus répétée. Merci Ruthven (msg) 16:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Bonsoir Jeff G. et Ruthven : il me semble qu'il n'est pas question d'art ici, ni de panorama, ni de débat clos. La question du droit d'auteur peut se poser sur une carte, mais pas sur un panneau illégal. Illégal puisqu'il tend à tromper les usagers sur le lieu où ils se trouvent, et la loi interdit de tromper les gens. Nous n'aurons pas de vérité ici puisque seuls les juges la détiennent, nous resterons donc chacun sur nos opinions. J'aurais admis sans aucune difficulté que cette image soit supprimée pour peu que l'utilisateur qui a demandé cette suppression ait engagé un dialogue au préalable. Il a admis depuis, par le fait qu'il m'a demandé en quoi cette image était encyclopédique, qu'il ne l'a pas comprise. Après Charles Peggy, alons nous avoir Arthur Rainbow ? Une telle image est encyclopédique car elle illustre une évolution de notre société, et le titre que j'ai donné à cette image démontre que c'était là mon intention initiale. Si des images viloent le droit d'auteur il me semble logique de les supprimer, il n'y a aucun esprit de vengence, simplement de la logique : au nom de quelle maturité devrait-on conserver des images illégales ?
Traduction automatique, sans aucune garantie autre que celle de GOOGLE : Hi Jeff G. and Ruthven: I think it is not about art here, or view or debate closed. The question of copyright may be on a map, but not on an illegal sign. Illegal because it tends to deceive the users on the place where they are, and the law forbids to deceive the people. We will not have any truth here since only the judges hold it, so we will each stay on our opinions. I would have admitted without any difficulty that this image is deleted if the user who requested this deletion has engaged in a dialogue beforehand. He has since admitted that he asked me why this picture was encyclopedic, that he did not understand it. After Charles Peggy, do we have Arthur Rainbow? Such an image is encyclopedic because it illustrates an evolution of our society, and the title I gave to this image shows that this was my original intention. If images vile copyright, it seems logical to me to delete them, there is no spirit of vengence, just logic: in the name of what maturity should we keep illegal images?
Cordialement - C'est moi (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Je tiens à préciser ici que je détiens la preuve écrite que ce panneau est issu d'une erreur et pas d'une intention délibérée - C'est moi (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

COM:FOP Indonesia

Cep Budhi Darma uploaded numerous files of places in Indonesia that may be a copyright. The guideline states that "with exception on educational purpose and non-commercial use", unless the uploader can justify the use of the files, I don't think they should be kept. Thoughts? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: Open a Deletion Request then, for the files you consider that must be deleted. The images of recent works, without authorisation, that are above the threshold of originality will be deleted. --Ruthven (msg) 07:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reneh3790

NO ACTION:

I wrote a warrning on Reneh3790's talkpage, if copyvios happen again this can be disscussed again.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 06:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reneh3790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

At Own collages with OWN PHOTOS Reneh3790 says quite clearly his collages are made up of their own photos. Generally I'd just give you a {{End of copyvios}} (which I already had) and call it a day. You couldn't be bothered to enter author information in UploadWizard, well, that happens, here's a warning and do better next time. Purposefully claiming your uploads are really really really own work, that's another thing.

I call your bluff and raise 200.

File:Collage Ciudad de Quetzaltenango.jpg

File:Villa Nueva Guatemala - Collage.jpg

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg

File:Collage Guatemala City.jpg can now actually be kept (I cropped the all rights reserved image and added the sources), but obviously this ain't no own work. We will never be able to trust any "own work" claim from this user. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @JoKalliauer, Patrick Rogel. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with @Alexis Jazz: , and I do not trust Reneh3790's rigorous own-claims, but I'm feeling to inexperienced (in user-problems) to suggest anything.
There might be one/two >>Own collages with OWN PHOTOS<< that's true, and therefore claims that (s)he is right at this one collage. But I do not looked that much into it as Alexis. But it is quite clear that several/most uploads are not Self-photographed .
Anyhow, maybe if all doubt pictures (s)he uploaded get deleted, we might believe his/her warning and (s)he might won't upload anything again (even without blocking).
Also blocking seems reasonable to me, but if we expect no (illegal) Media will get uploaded anymore, I do not see any need/sense of blocking him/her. But if something happens again it is then even more obvious.
I think the Deletionrequest (DR) is important and I personally would wait till it is decided, even-though the DR seems obvious to me.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Reneh3790 has not uploaded any files since the mass nomination and the final warning on 17 June, and received only a single copyvio notice before that date. Given that copyvios have currently stopped, and that they have implicitly retired, we don't seem to have adequate evidence/basis for a preventative block. Indeed, a final warning was just issued; it would be bizarre then to block when no copyvios have been uploaded subsequent thereto. Block if and when another copyvio is uploaded. Эlcobbola talk 16:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: more copyvios would obviously be a reason to block. The issue here is: say that Reneh3790 uploads some more photos, maybe with metadata this time. Even if we find no hard proof they are copyvio, we'd pretty much have to delete them anyway (unless we get OTRS permission I guess) because the user is known to outright lie about authorship. Well, as long as they stay retired I suppose it won't matter. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally, at any given time, a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie. We don't block these users until they demonstrate a failure to respond to appropriate warning. This is because "blocks are a last resort." (COM:BLOCK) Reneh3790 has effectively received only one indication (!!!) of a problem--a copyvio nomination on 25 November 2018 (Reneh3790 had not edited since 13 June 2019, and all other notifications came on on 17 June 2019)--and has not uploaded a copyvio since the final warning. Until we have evidence that the final warning (the "second to last resort") is being disregarded, we do not need the last resort of a block. Эlcobbola talk 16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
So I would close it here for now and wait for the next uploads
  1. If it is a correct upload: Great
  2. If it is a copyright-violation: According to @Elcobbola and Alexis Jazz: this will most likely lead to a block
  3. if it is unclear: It is in my opinin Reneh3790's "work" to gain trust again, and therfore without Commons:OTRS this will/should lead at least to a DR.
On User_talk:Reneh3790 we have a link to this page, and therfore if something happens again this disussion will be "exhumed"/found again.
I think we should write this conclusion onto their talkpage, that they know it's there buisness to gain trust again, and only obvious (with complete sources/permissions) Media will be accepted.
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: sounds reasonable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: a substantial portion of the images in Category:Copyright violations are ones for which the uploader has claimed "own"--an identical outright lie.
No. Just no. Dropping some files on UploadWizard and mindlessly clicking "next" is bad, but not nearly as bad as going to the talk page of someone who tagged your files for deletion and typing out the words "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking.", knowing full well this is false. Is this really the same to you? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Reneh3790's comments were about the collages. It is entirely possible they think cropping the source images makes the crops theirs ("OWN PHOTOS") and that combining those crops into collages makes the compilation theirs ("Own collages"). This would me an honest mistake from ignorance of derivaitve works, which is very common. Your comparison is disingenuous, and your comments are ridiculous (a false claim of "own" is equally disruptive whether done deliberately or mindlessly--a copyvio is a copyvio, and knows not intent.) Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: I'm all for playing devil's advocate, but even I wouldn't try to defend this one. (at least not with your strategy) You even try to turn this on me, calling my comparison "disingenuous" and my comments "ridiculous". Are you for real? You say "Reneh3790's comments were about the collages". Well that would have been an excellent defense, were it not for the fact Reneh3790 said "why don't you let me upload my OWN Photos I am taking". Exactly how does one take a collage? And btw, Patrick Rogel had only tagged the three collages which I analyzed here. So that's what he's claiming to be the author of. And you make no difference in intent? Even when the act is identical, intent determines consequences. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sayan Garai 94

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Same as above: everything is copyvio. Please note user has been indef blocked on English Wikipedia for image copyvio too under account Sayangarai32. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've had to get at least two articles protected at en-wiki where they are edit-warring these copyvios in using various IP addresses. Someone who can should probably also have a careful look at the "OTRS" on File:MP Hooghly.jpg. -- Begoon 17:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
And, as if by magic, now uploading copyvio overwriting the file I mention above (File:MP Hooghly.jpg), as Sayangarai32. -- Begoon 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The upload in the history of File:MP Hooghly.jpg at [70] should probably be rev-deleted in the meantime as a copyvio of https://www.outlookindia.com/public/uploads/gallery/20190617/mp_2_20190617.jpg (PTI Photo/Arun Sharma (71/1120) BJP MP Locket Chatterjee at Parliament House on the opening day of the first session of 17th Lok Sabha, in New Delhi.), whatever the "OTRS" outcome is. -- Begoon 17:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. No permission in this ticket, and very unlikely to come. DRed. The sock was blocked by Pi.1415926535. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Begoon 18:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Saikat Pal 31 is quite probably the "next" sock, uploading copvio pics of Chatterjee again. -- Begoon 09:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done Quite a duck. Blocked. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. -- Begoon 09:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Davo Ortiz

Continues copyvios after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done User blocked for 1 month, and some other copyvios deleted. The rest of the files were marked {{Dw no source since}} (probably scans of magazines). --Ruthven (msg) 08:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Eatcha

NO ACTION:

Nothing to be done here, unless you can provide an evidence that Eatcha uploads copyvios and ignores warnings systematically. --A.Savin 20:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oh my Jesus! This user uploaded copyrighted works. Not only he must be block indefinitely but also he must criminally charged for violating Indian copyright laws. He was previously blocked for 1 day for vandalism on June 11 but now he continues violate not only Wikimedia rules but this time is criminally. This time, he is uploading copyrighted works. This is not only breaks the rules but it is illegal under American and Indian law. I've marked the works that are copyrighted. One example is that he uploaded a whole episode of a French cartoon. The author who made this died in 1998. I've will contact the studio behind this about the matter. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserz: never heard of {{YouTube CC-BY}}? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you really sure? Someone of these works are still under copyright. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@SpinnerLaserz: All three have a YouTube-CC license. If you have a problem with them, you need to open a DR and explain exactly what your issue with them is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@SpinnerLaserz: , you are encouraged to file a lawsuit against me (In Both US and India), I'm really interested to meet you in the court. BTW what are your opinions regarding your non-new user like editing at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SpinnerLaserz&offset=20190622034455&target=SpinnerLaserz . I remember a blocked user who had same editing habits as yours but as I'm too busy now I'm not interested in it. And I was blocked because I was filing speedy deletion for all of my uploads including File:Rudy Mancuso & Maia Mitchell - Magic (Official Music Video).webm, File:Amazing Vienna - Austria 2017 - 4K.webm and File:EDDIE FRESCO - BARRI (Music Video).webm. And what would you say about the license of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4WxiLRIcX4 ? (The french animated series) It's clearly the official channel similar to the other 3 videos that are marked as COPYVIO by you. And I never upload any copyrighted video after I was warned by Krd on 20 June 2019. And If these files are really copyvio, then why Taivo reverted them ? He/She is an admin here, why he/she didn't deleted these files ? He/She has more Wikimedia experience than you. Who is you to say he must criminally charged for violating Indian copyright laws ??? And how do you know that I'm an Indian citizen or If I'm in India ? Are you spying on me ? Or you know me ? I requested to be indef blocked but I wasn't, I think one day block was enough for the problem that I caused but If any one disagree I'm ready to face a one month block as I won't be editing for next 26 days (I didn't edited much since 29 july). I will not defend my self anymore as I'm really don't have enough time to deal with this B.S. for at least 20 days. Eatcha (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nicholas Michael Halim

Almost everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Rabin32

Adds a false OTRS permission to file and removes deletion templates here and here. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, look a few threads up at #Sayan Garai 94 (which you started). This is almost certainly the "next" sock. -- Begoon 10:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: That's what I think but RCU isn't conclusive. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done Adding fake permissions is a no-no. Everything is deleted. Yann (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. Same image subject, same spelling errors (yes, I know it's not unique), same digits at end of username, messing around with bogus "OTRS", account created when others are blocked... I'll take "sock" over "unrelated" thanks - so they got a new/different device/ip/proxy - CU is not magic pixie dust, as they say... -- Begoon 11:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

상진과 찬호

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. All files are duly tagged. — regards, Revi 12:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Liverpoolpics

After last block I've told him/her to read COM:DW, COM:FAIR , LL, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States , Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom but he/she continues with an illustration from a comic, again a record cover and a Flickrwashed image. May user be welcomed again to use Google reverse search before upload or asked forced not to upload from Flickr? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed. Less than a month after a previous block that should have given enough notice, we can't afford the risk of keeping this person around. And that's apart from uploading misleading images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Worldsall

I just blocked User:Worldsall for those edits which replaced praises by 12 different users for user's images submitted to Commons:Photo_challenge with votes for 1st/2nd/3rd place in the competition. The block is for a month. --Jarekt (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnsonncn03221999

Continues copyvios after two warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done No useful edit, 2 weeks block. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ross kramerov Flickrwashing

User:Ross kramerov uploaded File:E. Gordon Perry Jr. (48123858257).jpg and File:Remote Control Lawnmower (48123725691).jpg from a Flickr account called "gperry2011". Both of these images were previously uploaded by User:Nolimetangere777. They were both recently deleted as copyright violations (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Remote Control Lawnmower(image one).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:E. Gordon Perry Jr.jpg). Neither of the original uploads came from Flickr. This is obvious Flickrwashing.

Has Ross kramerov also uploaded several images of actress Mariela Garriga from a recently created Flickr account called "Mariela Garriga". Ross kramerov created an article on Italian Wikipedia using the Flickrwashed images. The images were added to Wikipedia by Nolimetangere777 in this edit. It is obvious that the two accounts are related. It is also obvious that paid editing is involved, but that is not Commons concern. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I have no idea who is Nolimetangere777 and I'm not paid for any of my contributions. You can remove any files if you wish but I deny any COI involved here. This is just your opinion. --Ross kramerov (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    • That's interesting, because Nolimetamgere777 is doing exactly the same kind of Flickrwashing that you are. File:Carolyn Aug 2018 137 (48176615817).jpg was uploaded from a recently created Flickr account that has nothing but promo pictures of Carolyn Cresswell. Even more interesting, Nolimetangere777 uploaded File:RN Image1.jpg, which you used in Rubin Naiman, an article you created. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
      • My relation to Nolimetangere777 is only through the Wikipedia projects. Is it not allowed? I left many edits and notices on other editors' pages and talks, why don't you relate me to them as well? When I said that I don't have relation to Nolimetangere777, I meant that I don't know this user personally; if it is forbidden to cooperate on Wikipedia with other users, please, let me know. I just recently put 2-3 notices, informing about advertising or additional references and I hope it is not against the WP guidelines. If you take a look at my contributions, you will find high quality articles about history, biographies etc and what you do is bureaucracy which make people quit this beautiful project. Quality of my pages is much higher than of an average editor, including many of the veterans(who seem to spend more time on bureaucracy and disturbing other users than on the project itself). This is my opinion and now I'm not surprised why so many users are frustrated by Wikipedia administration and its bureaucracy and leave the project. I'm currently working on translation of more than 10 articles from Russian to English(See: George Dawe, Delyanin - are the first two) - do you think these people who died in the 19th century also paid me? --Ross kramerov (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

See this discussion on English Wikipedia. Both accounts have been blocked. Can someone delete all the Flickrwashed uploads, please? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hassle at my talk page

I'm getting constant hassle at my talk page from User:PaulBaker1980, a sock of a blocked en.wiki user, who just won't leave me alone and threatens to continue. See my talk page history, and this version where he says repeatedly "if you keep deleting your talk page I will keep writing back until you answer". Would somebody please be kind enough to make him go away? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say the en.wiki sockmaster is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben2719941. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and the connection might not be obvious, but at User talk:Hughesdarren you can see PaulBaker1980 continuing on from User:BrendanJayMorrison1994, another (locked) en.wiki sock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done Эlcobbola talk 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User:SHINGO154

SHINGO154 (talk · contribs) keeps (re-)uploading photos without permission from copyright holders. SLBedit (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Already blocked by Elcobbola. Yann (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

東証コンピュータシステム

東証コンピュータシステム (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I'm pretty sure File:TCS Headquarter.png has been deleted before. User has been given a warning not to re-upload.--Roy17 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Enmanuel

Copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Lisamol

Lisamol (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio and despite explanation doesn't seem to understand yet. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: It appears that this user has not learned in the intervening block time what constitutes a free image. They have just uploaded File:Neha Pednekar.jpg which appears to be a photo taken of a computer screen currently displaying an image that is unlikely to be their own work. --Geniac (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done Blocked indefinitely this time. Previous block did nothing and based on their previous unblock requests I have zero confidence that any determinate length of time is going to magically fix the problems. --Majora (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

FabianFrei

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect categorizations and rude messages

Mark Marathon (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

I have been categorising, re-categorising and sub-categorising files for years, so I'm not new at it.
Last Saturday I sub-categorized some of the files in Category:Citrullus lanatus (after been working on the article that afternoon). Some hours later most of my moves had been reverted (see this) with this reason. Two nights later I replied him, then I undid some of his editions and relocated some of the files in more specific categories. Files were rollbacked again, some of them without a reason and incorrectly, see this for example. Ok, I can cope with a different opinion about sub-categorising files.
But the problem goes beyond. I categorised 28 files, left orphaned after the user had removed the category, I warned him after my editions. I got this uncivil message after him reverting all of the files. My reply here (along with some other issues I'm comenting below). Tonight I've been updating the sources (some obsolete, some incorrect) of those files (File:Starr xxxx Psydrax odorata.jpg), categorised them once again and posted this explanation to him. His actions were to revert everything (apart from 2 files) see the list and even removing the updated source and other modifications I had added.
Moreover, as you can read here, the user categorises files in meta, general categories, instead of useful, specific ones; remove useful ones following odd criteria, tag files with incorrect "low quality" categories, leave files orphan and so on. Almost 60 files with the above mentioned problems that I had solved have been reverted. And I'm still waiting for some apologies to his ofensive words and threatens: Never do this sort of thing again, especially where you are grossly ignorant of the subject and too lazy to even look at the images. PS, if you insist on adressing other posters in a rude an imperious manner, expect the same in return. His talk page is full of complains about the same issues, and I'm not the only who has fixed some of his errors, but It seems I cannot. I ping @Amada44: and @Taivo: who previously dealt with him. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Cuatro Remos

NO ACTION:

Historiadormundo is blocked for abusing multiple accounts and making retaliatory requests. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Por favor si es normal que todas la ediciones que yo hago aquí siempre son tratatadas de borrar por este usuario o revertidas, sin explicación.

Un saludo --Read more is to know more (:)) Historiadormundo 18:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You have done nothing but pointless edits which could be considered vandalism. In fact, I should have reported you, sockmaster. The Pascual Ortega category does not contain its maternal surname and it should not be included in Defaultsort. The license for the Echenique file was not correct and you know it. A creator template should not be added to categories when there is an infobox already. The other reversal is from long ago and I'm not commenting on that. The Spanish Wikipedia rollback has nothing to do with Commons. By the way, I urge admins to keep an eye on this user since they are a blocked sockmaster in the Spanish Wikipedia and a known vandal/troll. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 18:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC) PS. they have changed their comment several times since I replied, so my numbering may not correlate with it. Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 23:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Es normal que este usuario me trate de Troll o Vandalo? No de ninguna explicación sobre sus reversiones que son 7 casos presentados que son reversions hechas hoy , ayer y antes de ayer? La más antigua tiene 3 dias y la mas nuevas (5) son de hoy. Un saludo--Read more is to know more (:)) Historiadormundo 18:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)--Read more is to know more (:)) Historiadormundo 18:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ranjit santanu

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. All files deleted, or nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

AviationNC

Continues copyvios despite block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Bang matel

Please block and delete files uploaded by Bang matel (talk · contribs), promotion only. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WQL

NO ACTION:

The DRs are not "frivolous". Speedy deletion requests were not correct as they were not obvious copyvios, but they were converted to regular DRs by User:Yann. The barnstar may indeed be sarcastic (I personally think so), but it is not actionable. I suggest you just shrug it off. However, User:WQL should avoid sending a WikiLove message in such situations in future. Regarding the Yuexiu Library files (deleted by User:Túrelio), you may file an undeletion request at COM:UDR. A discussion/investigation may be needed for restoring those files. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WQL (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Today this user requested speedy deletion or deletion requests for so far ten files I uploaded, but most were frivolous attempts. Yet a copyright watcher star was given to me after these ten DRs. I suppose it was a sarcastic barnstar.

The DRs are frivolous because:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roy17: typefaces are not protected in the US.
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahjong n w s e.png: simple basic mahjong pieces.
  3. File:HK Trappist Dairy Fresh Milk 3.jpg: a Christian cross is PD I guess? Even if it were copyrightable, the anonymous/corporation-owned logo has been used in Hong Kong for over 50 years and copyright would have expired.
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Please mind the slippy floor! (41862644).jpg: simple stick-man figures are not copyrightable per Chinese judicial precedents.
  5. File:越秀区图书馆2013年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2014年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2015年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2016年年报.pdf: Yuexiu Library is a governmental orgnaization, a subordinate of 越秀区文化广电新闻出版局.

I had posted a note on this user's talk page, yet this user took it as frivolous attacking, so a formal complaint seems necessary.--Roy17 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

These DRs are not frivolous, because:
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roy17: Caligrapy work is art work, not computer typefaces. In no way it is not protected in the US.
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahjong n w s e.png: Per above. Obviously derived works of caligraphy works.
  3. File:HK Trappist Dairy Fresh Milk 3.jpg: see COM:PACKAGING
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Please mind the slippy floor! (41862644).jpg: In China, unless the existing case is a typical case stipulated by the Supreme People's Court, it cannot be used for analogy in other cases in Chinese judicial practice. In this case, the precedent is not a "a typical case".
  5. File:越秀区图书馆2013年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2014年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2015年年报.pdf File:越秀区图书馆2016年年报.pdf: not meeting the Article 5, since it is not a work of "administrative and judicial nature". 越秀区图书馆 is not a governmental orgnaization. It is a public institution with no public management function or administrative nature. Governmental institutions in China only include govenment bodies, and public institution with public management functions like 银保监会, 证监会 and 国资委. A library does not meet the definition.
Finally: I may uploaded some images that may violate copyright, since I had not enough understanding on FoP and other concepts in copyright before. I haven't notice this until Roy17 noticed me. Anyway, the barnstar is thanking for nominating for deletion. In no way it can be sarcastic. I have cleaned up some media that may violate the policy. Had there any problem on files I uploaded, please just tell me on my talkpage. --WQL (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@WQL: please provide evidence to substantiate your claims instead of merely throwing out jargons. #1 and #2 are clerical script and regular script typefaces unless you find evidence that they are calligraphic work of artistic nature. Do read the entire section on COM:PACKAGING and identify which element in File:HK Trappist Dairy Fresh Milk 3.jpg could be copyrightable. If you would like to challenge the examples listed in COM:TOO China, feel free to do so. Contrary to your claims, Yuexiu Library is a governmental organisation. The annual reports are informative summaries of the department's work.
There was actually one more: File:七一大遊行 (34846204964).jpg. AFAICT, potentially copyrighted materials, such as the photo, posters and flags, are de minimis. Please identify which element you think is violation of copyright.--Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment The DRs are OK, but not the speedy deletion requests. These are not obvious copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Reply to Roy17: I actually do not think the File:七一大遊行 (34846204964).jpg meets de minimis. I think that in this image of Liu Xiaobo is the main point of the image. If you think it does meet de minimis, I will revert it.
Mainland China is not an area of case law. Beijing Municipal High People's Court is no Supreme People's Court. That rule only does effect on that case, not this case.
Contrary to your claims, 越秀图书馆 (Yuexiu Library) is not a governmental organisation (政府单位), but a public institution with no public management function (无行政职能的事业单位). Yuexiu Library in no way have an administrative function, or in other words, no public management function, so its work obviously has no administrative and judicial nature, and they are not PD. Governmental organisations and public institution are two completely diffrent types of law persons in civil law. Please don't confuse the two concepts.
File:HK Trappist Dairy Fresh Milk 3.jpg: The overall design itself is special and above COM:TOO, which meets COM:PACKAGING: "Ooverall 3D shape of most packaging (boxes, cartons, bottles) is not copyright-protected", that is the reason. For example, the "cross" trademark is placed on the left of the "roof", the overall color is red, and here is a cross all over the box. As a result, I think that the whole design is above COM:TOO.
"unless you find evidence that they are calligraphic work of artistic nature": This is only my thoughtsjudgement. I think you can just challenge it, since I may be wrong. --WQL (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@WQL: so you admitted This is only my thoughts. I think you can just challenge it, since I may be wrong.
Deletion requests need to be supported with evidence. Yet you filed all these DRs in an hour based on your thoughts, with no regard of laws of their countries of origin, Commons guidelines and inspection of the materials nominated. In other words, you were filing requests to merely clarify your doubts. That's not the purpose of DR. You could ask anything you dont understand at Commons:Help_desk.--Roy17 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I never fill "all these DRs in an hour based on your thoughts". I always use my common sense and considering policies and laws. This is my thoughts, since it is suspected but not clear copyright violation. In the Chinese world, it is very common to create a calligraphy work that contains the name of a newspaper, and it may be used on the front page. --WQL (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Also: I am poor in English. What I said "thoughts", actrually means 判断 (judgment: "[t]he process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing"). --WQL (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
But this user did notice File:Seattle-Chinese-Post-Logo2.png was Per Wikipedia: "Founded on 1982 by Assunta Ng" in the United States. Then this user should have known text logos are not eligible for copyright and COM:TOO US has a gallery of acceptable logos, many of which are more complex than this newspaper title.--Roy17 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Other bad requests:
  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shandong Museum Cheer for the Olympics 20180430.jpg
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:标志.jpg--Roy17 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Riccardo Spinella

NO ACTION:

A proper legal threat hasn't been observed. However, if watermarks have to be removed in this case, this should be done in separate files. --Ruthven (msg) 12:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Riccardo Spinella (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Italian language user Riccardo Spinella engaged an edit-war on every single picture he uploaded. All the pictures are uploaded with a watermark, and I tried to explain the user that this is descouraged on Commons. He was write-only and insisted in restore the images that I (and some other users) cleaned of the watermarks. I insisted in trying to explain this user what is the point of removing watermark, and my understanding of our policies is that this kind of watermark should be removed. If I'm wrong there's no problem for me, I'm gonna upload the files without watermark with differen names for use in sister projects, but I expect the user is gonna engage in multiple edit-wars to keep the files with watermarks alive, as autopromotion as a professional photographer by the google indicization of Wikipedia pages with pictures seems his scope here. I'm writing here to know what should be the right approach to such kind of edit-wars, and for a second reason. In his last message (in his user page) he threatened me legally. I'm not so familiar with Commons management of such cases, but in Italian Wikipedia (where I'm sysop) users that do this are immediatly blocked no matter what. I'm also not sure if I should ping administrators that could read Italian language, please let me know what to do and if I should start with the uploading of the image at a different name. --Phyrexian ɸ 04:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any legal threat (though I'm relying on Chrome's translation), but he is incorrect about the watermarks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
He wrote «Non mi piace essere minacciato aprirò un'inchiesta a questo proposito per chiarire definitamente...» which means «I do not like being threatened I will start an investigation about this to clarify definitively...» I'm sorry, maybe my English translation does not do the work properly, but "inchiesta" in Italian sounds definitevly like a "legal investigation" (and of course I never threatened him, just about report here and reupload his files). I'm not worry by the way, I'm just trying to learn how such behavors are managed here on Commons. That he's incorrect about the watermarks is also my opinion, so how we can resolve the dispute if he's insisting in reverting the uploads? --Phyrexian ɸ 05:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The general rule (as explained in COM:OVERWRITE) is that a file should only be overwritten if the overwrite is uncontroversial. Here, Riccardo Spinella has clearly objected to your overwriting these files, so you should not overwrite them. Instead, as you said, you can upload the files without watermarks under different names and use those ones instead. --bjh21 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I'll start the uploading at different names then. --Phyrexian ɸ 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iranfootballofficiall

Everything is copyvio, uploads and reuploads the same deleted file, removes deletion template. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Эlcobbola talk 15:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Eatcha 2

NO ACTION:

I warned Voldemort for nonsense report here. Any further disruption should lead to a block. Yann (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please block Eatcha (talk · contribs), for this harassing edit and supporting his friends with fake links. -- Voldemort (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elman Həsənli

Continues copyvios despite blocks. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sayan 764

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Solomon203

Solomon203 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Persistent copyright violator. --Akasata Nahamara (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The above poster has few or no edits outside the above post.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Solomon203 (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose no proof. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I warned Akasata Nahamara for nonsense reporting. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Romen 211

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning from an admin

I've made some restructuring at the Category:Odintsovsky_Urban_District after moving from Category:Odintsovsky_District which was caused by changes in administrative status of the territory. Among the thing I've created Category:Railways in Odintsovsky Urban District which wasn't there before.

@A.Savin: had made a comment at my talk page asking what this category is for (in Russian). After my explanation he demands to rename it to Category:Rail transport infrastructure in Moscow Oblast. I've asked him some sources his reasoning. He responds that he issues a warning for me unwilling to fix the naming "не хотите собственные косяки исправлять".

How he could come to this reckoning? He also informed me that he will block my account if a continue to make intentionally inappropriate massive changes in the Commons.

I do believe that the warning and the pettish tone are completely inappropriate in this situation.--Vаdiм (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't. You created a category named Category:Railways in Odintsovsky Urban District, despite the fact that a) the only maternal category there was Category:Odintsovsky Urban District and b) there are no such categories at least in the Russian hierarchy -- see Category:Railways in Russia which is just a redirect to Category:Rail transport in Russia. And it is not the only case of such careless categorization by you. See for example Category:Countryside in Odintsovsky District (???), Category:Cycling in Guinea with only one maternal category created (meanwhile I've fixed that for you), and that are only very recent examples. Clear abuse of COM:ANU by Vаdiм, because the only one who creates wrong and/or insufficiently formated categories is he, and of course I have all the right to warn a user for such kind of editing. And to block too, if that continues. --A.Savin 20:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A.Savin turns the things inside out which I can't leave without a comment. Someone could confirm with the original thread. Should I provide a translation?

In short: he demanded a change, I asked for an explanation. Instead he:

  • accuses me of refusal of cooperation
  • declares his warning
  • threatens to block the account next time

Where is an evidence of my refusal of cooperation? Was my answer "No"? Not surprisingly, I've asked for the ground/rules in his actions. He replied he acts on his own discretion and continues with more threats of a ban.

Now, he finds what is likely another couple of errors of mine and nearly proclaims me a habitual criminal. The story with the ban continues.

Why is that that prejudice? Why is that intimidation? Clearly a failure to work constructively with others.

Can't help adding a couple of good advises I've just found:

...take the time, explain why you did what you did, don't get mad if someone else asks you to explain, don't get upset if someone else doesn't understand what you meant. Just explain it again. Be patient. Take extra care to ask for input from others. Take extra care to seek consensus. Take extra time to make sure everyone's cool with what you propose. There is no rush.

Even admins are subject to biases and incompetence. Being an admin doesn't make a user a semi-God. But some admins think so. This happens everywhere some people can get more power than others without fearing to lose them. You shouldn't have to accept oppressive power: always fight the injustice!

So, what would be the best to start with instead?

Could you please rename A to B as the later follows the common pattern in the hierarchy C, see Commons:Categories#Universality principle? BTW, thanks for some help with sorting out the Panoramio dump.

Still less letters to type, the case is solved. Everybody's smiling. --Vаdiм (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Goenka College

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: I added that to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sayangarai32.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not upload copyvio images I am already sent OTRS with proper evidence so,request to the wiki common authority please consider me because I am just a beginner of wiki file uploading not an expert.Thanking you for your kind cooperation.Stay blessed Sir.Thank you so much.Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goenka College (talk • contribs) 10:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Goenka College: What's the ticket number?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Relpy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goenka College (talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

For info - puppet account and now blocked as such. --Herby talk thyme 11:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Re Ticket:2019071410001844, the names don't match.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Bauty2003

Escape block by Bauty Aguirre (talk · contribs) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bauty2003&diff=357541127&oldid=356951536. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. Yann (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Spam bot and others

As above.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Miros Dursselev

Continues copyvio after previous block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

ดาวประกายพรึก

  Warned. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 days, as they had uploaded 2 copyvios after last warning. --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The user came back with a new account to upload the same photos again: พุ่มข้าวบิณฑ์ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). @4nn1l2: @Túrelio: Castillo blanco (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Sock blocked indefinitely, block period of the main account extended. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TGA78

User:TGA78 has uploaded a number of images of transit vehicles. All of them appear to come from the website of a transit enthusiast, but have had the copyright info cropped off the bottom. Can someone please nuke their uploads and warn the user? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Files were from different online sources. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The user is re-creating the deleted files. I once deleted them all. But they are creating them for the third time. I would prefer not to act myself directly because of their uncivil comment. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked him for three days for uncivil behaviour and re-uploading deleted images. Should give them time to calm down Gbawden (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Jcb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe this was an inappropriate edit-war action while the validity of the template is under discussion, disregarding this and this. Sad to say. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

How many forums are you going to shop for this case? The reverts are an admin action, because you are adding OTRS permission templates to files that are not covered by the permission. If you continue, you will be blocked. Jcb (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I see no forumshop. SergeWoodzing is unaware you are an admin. We have no edit warring noticeboard like enwiki, so he reports that here. He also has an issue with permissions/deletion tagging, which he first discussed on your talk page. That didn't work out the way he had hoped, so he reported that on COM:AN. Makes sense to me. As I have no OTRS access, I can't comment on that issue. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Everybody who is not Alexis Jazz will see that Serge is currently writing at whatever noticeboard he can find. Jcb (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't se how being sarcastic or starting to mock me will help us, nor how that kind of thing automatically goes in under administrative privileges. Please limit your comments to the issues! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You are currently discussing the same subject at 6 different places simultaneously. That's highly disrupting, don't do that. Jcb (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, with all due respect, each discussion is pertinent and necessary because I am in need of the help I've asked for in each place. You are the one who has tagged 4 images for 7-day deletion, fully aware of the permissions backlog. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
How nice, a personal attack, from none other than Jcb. I'm honored. On closer inspection I also found Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Stumped and some file talk pages. Still seems like SergeWoodzing was escalating the issue (perhaps more quickly than recommendable), starting at file talk and user talk through VPP to ultimately COM:AN and COM:ANU for what he perceives as two different issues. (edit warring and the OTRS thing) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Извращение названия файла

Администраторам Wikimedia commons

Уважаемые Дамы и Господа,

Некогда мною был загружен файл: «Bad Mergentheim Markt» Теперь я вижу на Commons сделанное мною его изображение под другим именем: «Плохой Мергентхейм Маркт» (!)

Подчёркиваю, что я не загружал файла с таким именем. Более того, я не имел намерения давать изображению никаких эмоциональных оценок.

Полагаю, что здесь в самом явном виде имеет место нарушение моих авторских прав .В первую очередь – права давать название своей работе. И нести именно за него ответственность. А также преступление, которое подпадает (дополнительно) под юридическую категорию ПОДЛОГА.

Обращаю Ваше внимание на то, что подобный демарш совершён и в отношении к немалому количеству загруженных мною с названиями по-английски файлов. Это, кстати, разрушило перечисление всех моих файлов в алфавитном порядке. К тому же попутно ликвидирована возможность редактирования лицензии в соответствии с возникающей со временем необходимостью коррекции принадлежности файла к той или иной категории

Наиболее вероятной причиной этого систематически воспроизводимого на моих страницах безобразия является элементарная безграмотности в языках и отсутствие желания контролировать свои действия.

Надеюсь, что чувство профессионального самоуважения и принадлежности к авторитетной международной организации побудит немедленно и повсеместно исправить эту вопиющую и постыдную практику .Сохранив лицо. И вернуться к проверенному годами способу редактирования файлов.

P.S. Во всяком случае оставляю за собой право искать для себя защиты в соответствии с действующим законодательством о защите авторских прав.

С уважением . Витольд Муратов. Vitold Muratov (talk) 03:17, 18 Juli 2019 (UTC)

Vitold, can you provide file links please? Your File:Bad Mergentheim. Markt.jpg has not been renamed and File:Плохой Мергентхейм Маркт.jpg does not exist on Commons. Also searching ru:wp for Плохой Мергентхейм Маркт has no hits. --Achim (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, very weird comment. And there is also a legal threat. --A.Savin 17:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems, user turned on an automatic translator of all pages or smth else like this. Lesless (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, see, please, here. Lesless (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  Not done. Мне кажется, это ошибочное заявление и здесь ничего не нужно делать. Taivo (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

RandomUserGuy LAZY

User:RandomUserGuy1738 is very lazy. He always uploads photos from White House via Flickr, he probably the fans of Donald Trump. It is because apart from categories of Donald Trump, he didn't add any things to the file, which caused problem on searching. --219.78.190.196 15:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you specify where are bad categories? From what I have seen, there is nothing wrong about their uploads. --A.Savin 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  Not done. "Very lazy user" is not a reason for sanctions. It seems to me, that most of Commons users are very lazy. Taivo (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

serial copyvio uploader - Pak-Egale

Pak-Egale (talk · contribs) has been uploading a series of web-sourced images related to the Pakistani military, then claiming them as 'own work'. Despite warnings and deletions, they've simply blanked the warnings and continued uploading more. The two here are since the warnings.

Time for an indef. They're not interested in discussing this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Morgankevinj blocked the user for a month and deleted all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Smt.Locket Chatterjee,Member of Parliament,28-Hooghly

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs), same uploads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Rogel (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Fabrica88

Abusing multiple accounts to upload out of COM:SCOPE stuff (ru:Касаткин Георгий Кириллович). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Gunter1955 is blocked indef. Fabrica88 is warned. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ebouabid

Continues copyvios after warnings. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I do not understand why I am being blocked. 1/ As a community manager I have been hired by the actress herself Laëtitia Eïdo to update her information on Wikipedia. We realized that users had created her page and had published false information. 2/I have sent the copy of permissions to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) validating the rights on the images I have imported unto WikiCommons. The image "Long time no see" was taken by Mickael Berreby, Laetitia Eido's photographer who sent us a written permission allowing us to use his photograph. I have sent this permission along with the others for each image used to the same address (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Are you in contact with them? Do you have access to the permissions I have sent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.86.153.206 (talk • contribs)

Andy5897

Andy5897 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

It looks an awful lot like this user is just making random crops so that they can insert strange characters into file names. GMGtalk 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Such behavior we've had some months ago. Can't remember user name or file names. --Achim (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

StarGoodkid Worldwide

Abusing multiple accounts to upload out of COM:SCOPE stuff. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Files deleted, no abuse detected. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Continues uploads this time under StarGoodkid Worldwide (talk · contribs) account. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done Files deleted, user warned. One more problematic upload and they will be blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done Goodwill motshabi is blocked. Yann (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Guerolol2001

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked by Herbythyme. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Uploading of OOS/personal images

Swastik phulare uploaded many files of which are personal/private images with family & or friends. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Swastik phulare. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Marcalejruiz

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done One week block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible self-promotion

Sujith Samantha Priyadarshana Rathnayake uploaded several files that might be self-promotion. (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sujith Samantha Priyadarshana Rathnayake) It can't be deleted under OOS as the files are used on a single page on si.wiki. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

All India

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Sid54126

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Warned twice, only one remaining file OK by chance, two weeks block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Poorly photoshopped sexual images

Two separate users have uploaded similar bizarre photoshopped images. Bazara2019 uploaded File:Two men sex.jpg and a day later Almopo2003 uploaded File:Man sex with doll.jpg. They look to me to be the work of the same person. A checkuser might be useful to see if there's more where these came from. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: I filed an official request @ Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bazara2019. While looking at the recent uesr creation log, I already found some that might be of the same person. In addition, there was a case (if I remember correctly) that is similar to this. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Iranfootballofficiall

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Chiyako92

I was checking recently installed licence reviewers' reviews. I noticed that ChoHyeri reviewed many Chiyako92's and Chiyako92 reviewed many ChoHyeri's. It should be noted that licence reviewers are not allowed to review their own uploads. Using two accounts to circumvent the rule is serious abuse.--Roy17 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: Could you add a diff please? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. ChoHyeri and I are sisters (as noted on our it.wiki profiles, even though I admit that my notice is rather criptic); since we usually know if the other has some recently uploaded files, that's why we are often found reviewing each others' uploads. If it's a problem, I'll refrain from doing it. Best regards. --Chiyako92 (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chiyako92: You mean you are twin sisters? Anyway, yes, you should refrain from reviewing eachother's files. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Okay. And yes, we are twin sisters. --Chiyako92 (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chiyako92 and ChoHyeri: yes, I had thought about the possibility of twin sisters. However, Edit Counter stats show similar editing activity patterns from 2013 to 2019 for both accounts on Commons. I also checked your contribs from mid-May to now. In these two months, you were never online at the same time (one's activity overlapping the other's in a certain period). As such, I emailed User:Trijnstel to checkuser, and started this thread for you to explain instead of blocking immediately.
I am sorry to say, I dont believe in coincidence. But assuming good faith in users, as Yann said, as long as you dont review each other's, I think it's OK.--Roy17 (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment If they are using the same computers, check user won't help. May be you should send a mail to OTRS to prove your identity (all details will be kept private). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17 and Yann: I understand. Infact we seldom overlap because we alternate at the same PC at home, especially in the afternoon and over weekends. As for OTRS, I thought it was only for image release rights. How do we proceed to prove our identities? --Chiyako92 (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You can send a copy of some ID documents for both of you to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Then a ticket number can be added to your accounts referring to the information, which is only accessible to OTRS members. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I forgot to mention, both accounts had rather good standing and received few complaints.
@Yann: I could think of two ways to check reviewing interaction. Using VFC, either load a user's uploads and Advanced select all files that contain a reviewer's username in wikitext (because LR template requires a signature), or load search query insource:/user\=Username/ (LR template signature pattern) and Advanced select by uploaders. ChoHyeri reviewed 599 files, 159 of which were uploaded by Chiyako92. ChoHyeri has 1924 live uploads. 1353 are in category Files from external sources with reviewed licenses. 407 contained Chiyako92 in wikitext.--Roy17 (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chiyako92: a gentle reminder: I dont think sending sensitive private info (ID document) to OTRS is good for your privacy and safety. Instead, sending a photo of two of you together seems to be sufficient proof.--Roy17 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: We ask ID documents to OTRS clients all the time. Why would it be not OK here? But I would also accept a picture as you mention above. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17 and Yann: I'll send both, it's not a problem. --Chiyako92 (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 
Sorry I didnt know OTRS procedures. I wouldnt send my ID to strangers. :/ Taking a photo like this with usernames written on A4 papers would be enough I'd say.--Roy17 (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Photo has been sent. --Chiyako92 (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  Info We got a mail with a picture of two people. OTRS agents can see it, others can ask and I hope I can help. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

OK for me. Yann (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Shall I add {{Verified account}} or you take care of it? Bencemac (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: I was waiting for more comments, but now   Done. You can close the ticket. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Closed, thanks for the answer. Bencemac (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree you two shouldn't review each others' uploads. Self-review is not allowed because a fresh pair of eyes without bias should review the upload. That could easily be compromised, even unintentionally, when you're closely related. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Enmanuel0704

Escape block by Enmanuel (talk · contribs), same Venezuelan-related vandalism ([71], [72]). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Flexfxproductions

All files are copyvios, last warning given about a year ago. See this users's talk-page for more info. -- Eatcha (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week. This account may be blocked indef. unless they verify it. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Rahul sharma from Delhi

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him for 3 months and you nominated copyvios for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Kasatkin.gk

a.k.a. Fabrica88 (talk · contribs), Gunter1955 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Abusing multiple accounts to reupload already deleted out of COM:SCOPE stuff (ru:Касаткин Георгий Кириллович). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Sockpuppets are indefinitely blocked and tagged. I'll delete all their uploads and close their deletion requests as out of scope. Taivo (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Srijit das 43

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked by Yann. --Mhhossein talk 12:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Images by Rakib.Official

Rakib.Official (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploaded many files that may be copyrighted logos. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Last warning sent. Yann (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Goumi90

Goumi90 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Don't understand anything at licenses: states {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} when the source says something else. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Already blocked once. One month only, as some images are OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Escape block

Following users escape block from いせちか国際空港. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What should the upload be deleted as? copyvio? Also created a RFCU. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done All blocked and tagged as sockpuppets. Taivo (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed

Abdel Rahman Hany Muhamed (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done 2 weeks block, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I think you didn’t block him. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
OOPS. Thanks for caring.   Done now. Yann (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: and you may have accidentally blocked Abdo Hany Mohamed, only 1 copyvio. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Or is it a sock? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, most probably.   Done Yann (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Lurgnarb

Persistent copyvios. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done. You warned him/her, at moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly treating commons as cloud

I think that Judgefloro is treating commons as his host (cloud) to save his files. Uploads by the user is very similar to each other (See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro). Is there anything we can do about this? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all of his uploads are out of scope, but only a fraction of his images are used. In addition, some FOP issues of sculptures which are copyvios in Philippines (follow US laws). Views? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
IMHO the files are perfectly in scope. Only a fraction of the images in Commons are in use but that's not a problem. Alleged derivative works should be sent to COM:DR. Strakhov (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: Is there a way where I can look through the said user's uploads, starting from the oldest in VFC? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: I honestly don't know. Strakhov (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: Go to their user page. Start VFC. Before clicking on the "Proceed" button, choose "More options" and select the desired sorting ("from old to new"). 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Mishi dar

Mishi dar (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Everything is copyvio. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for one week. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Problem

Why is Moonrivers able to upload despite being blocked? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

No idea, but the the time being I've upped the block to indef due to block evasion. See if that works. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Maybe that there is a bug somewhere? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
No bugs. Files have been imported from the English Wikipedia by third parties [73].
@Rodhullandemu: Maybe we should change the block period back to one year. No block evasions that I can see. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: The file seems to be initially uploaded by Moonrivers (see Special:Diff/359739053). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 10:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: Yes. The files were initially uploaded by Moonrivers to the English Wikipedia [74], not to Commons where they were (and still are) blocked. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

They looked like his uploads to me, so I in the light of this I will restore the 1 year block. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Image Upload 32

Escape block by Sayan Garai 94 (talk · contribs), same uploads. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Pipenavis

Continues copyvios despite block. Doesn't understand what a license is. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

sock

Sozara1995 obvious sock of Bazara2019. Uploading same images. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Almopo2003 also uploaded the same file in the past. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 78#Poorly photoshopped sexual images for ref. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Attia.hakim

Attia.hakim (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Marcalejruiz

Marcalejruiz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios out of block. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for one month. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Badly photoshopped porn

File:Gay anal sex 1.jpg looks almost the same as File:Man sex with doll.jpg, what's going on here?--BevinKacon (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see #sock. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Shahroz Syed

And rapidly using them on en.wikipedia. Peaceray (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done Blocked for a week. All uploads nuked Gbawden (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Bject

Bject (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Continues copyvios after blocks.--Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Francis roi

Possibly adding copyrighted logos. Sources given have no explicit statement saying that the logos are free-to-use. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done User warned. Blocking should only be done after user has been formally warned Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

I require administrators to warn the user about personal attacks in this deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tte.Grl Cristino Nicolaides.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:GrlDiv Juan Carlos R. Trimarco.jpg. I have no interest in starting a battle, I presented arguments, and this user only responds with personal attacks. I have no interest also in any kind of punishment or anything else, only a simple warning about the personal attacks. Thank you. --EMans (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This user has been blocked in spanish wikipedia because his permanent harassement (including use of puppets) on me and other users: [75] [76]. Now, he's doing the same in wikimedia commons because he can not do so on spanish wikipedia. I also present arguments at the deletion request. Cheers. --Turkmenistan (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Even here, the user continues the harassement. I am block in es.wiki, but that has no importance right here, neither in the discussion about a deletion request.--EMans (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Not done. There is no inappropriate behavior by user Turkmenistan in the two discussions mentioned. Please do not bring conflicts of es.wiki to Commons. Érico (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Adhiero lo dicho por Érico, voy a agregar este incidente a la búsqueda de consenso en Wikipedia en Español sobre el caso del denunciante Ezarateesteban 23:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts: block evasion Максим Огородник - 4

New account — Vw21V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See preceding:

See also comment - the user writes that he uses the network VPN. --Микола Василечко (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And? --Микола Василечко (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What? --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_78&oldid=361828740"