Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 89

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | User problems

User:120.127.47.85

User:120.127.47.85 is another appearance of User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak9026‎, once again trying to get the files they uploaded deleted as copyvio, with a dead link to a Google Photos page. Repeated disproven claims, copyvio instead of DR on already DRed works, and not even an edit summary saying that they were adding copyvio notices. I'm not expecting much from this, but it is the sockpuppets of a banned user engaging in nuisance behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You may know the user by one of their other names, including FJAC, PK1913, and 1913peking. See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/PK1913.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I've added the pages to my watchlist. It appears to be a shared IP, and they aren't actively editing, so I'll hold off on blocking for the moment. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:CrowAZN

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

anti-Semitic edit summary (here) -- Eatcha (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him/her indefinitely and nominated the userpage in meta for deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted the userpage + blocked on meta (and also globally locked). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:KingNicholasOfEngland's

Crosswiki abuse, indeffed on en / mediawiki for not here / out of scope pages. Here seems the same. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Silly me, this should be at COM:ANP. I don't know why I ended up posting here. Anyway globally locked already. Sorry for the wrong venue. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Kingwarnen (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)

I have been experiencing long-term difficulties with this user. They share an interest in traffic signs, as I do, and have uploaded several files, however they often lack sources and appear dubious. Several times I have contacted the user requesting sources for their images, and have usually been "blown off" for lack of a better term. This has now reached a point where I believe they are fabricating false sourcing, specifically in regard to three images:

I have a copy of the traffic signs manual from the Jamaican Government dated 17 March 2003. It is in PDF format and not edit protected. I recently requested sources for the first two images listed. The user explained that they got it from a copy of the manual as well, which they have chosen to upload to Commons as File:Traffic control device manual (1).pdf. I took a brief glance and initially took the user at their word. However, taking a closer look, I noticed that their PDF and mine have the same date and same number of pages. The text appears to have been edited to support the user's images, as the additional text does not share the same typeface as the rest of the document. Taking an even closer look, by opening the PDF pages in Inkscape, one can see that several signs have been placed over the original, such as the no tractor sign, the third image I have listed above. Kingwarnen's version of the PDF has the tractor symbol which they have been attempting to upload over my file for over a year, and which I have repeatedly reverted as unsourced, but if you open that page in Inkscape you can easily move the image to reveal the original version concealed beneath, which is identical to mine. Numerous other signs in the document have either been edited or had new signs placed overtop them. I can not think of any other explanation for this discrepency between the two PDFs other than that the user is taking advantage of the non-edit protected status to fabricate sourcing. I have no idea how to proceed further but this is unacceptable behaviour and requires administrator review. I have uploaded my copy of the document to my dropbox so that any user may view/download it and compare with the version uploaded by Kingwarnen. Fry1989 eh? 18:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought I would add a quick reference guide for users comparing the two documents. Pages 17, 21, 25, 27, 32, 38 to 43, and 85 all have had images altered, most commonly by placing a new raster sign ontop of the original image in the PDF, concealing it but not removing it. Pages 21, 52, 53, and 56 have had their text altered. Fry1989 eh? 00:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? I worked hard on this but you're trying to get rid of it? You fixed the Pedestrain signalised crossing sign and that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarnen (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe Kingwarnen either doesn't understand or doesn't appreciate the efforts of those of us in the traffic signs group of contributors to be accurate. They have uploaded several unsourced images that I consider plausible and others I consider to be dubious, but actions such as this are not helpful and brings doubt on all their images. I take no pleasure in this situation. Fry1989 eh? 00:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach

Back in August, I reported User:TylerKutschbach for removing all categories from any US presidential maps that others upload while uploading their own maps. When told about it, the user moved to uploading their maps on top of the other maps (while not correcting the licensing). Even after a three-day block and numerous warnings, categories continue to be removed from maps by others. The only response is that the user has created SVG maps which (1) is irrelevant as they remove the categories from others' SVG maps and (2) the categories have nothing to do with SVG maps anyways. If these are incorrect maps, the proper response would be to discuss and delete the improper ones but hiding them via category removal is not the solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I’m trying to undo this user’s uncategorization vandalism, but thanks to SDC it’s harder than it should be: When more than one category was deleted, undoing each edit is less practical than just copy wikitext from an older version of the page, but once one of those bots went through the file to add SDC entries, it becomes impossible to retrieve the wiki text of old versions — which in itself is vandalism at a much larger scale. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    phab:T225897 is being worked on. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    These antics have been going on since July. I was trying to do the same thing but it's annoying enough that I had to quit. The last thing we need is hundreds more files that lose their categorization so that someone can have the ego of their map being the one people use. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sock

I suspect Mobinaabbasi0 (talk · contribs) is a sock of HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki (talk · contribs) as they uploaded the same file and participated in the same DR in an attempt to keep a file that should be deleted. Could someone take a look? TIA Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

So Gbawden Sir, You feel that I created an another account on October 2020, uploaded some files with Arabic names some weeks ago, which were deleted and used this account now? Sir, if you want to delete the file uploaded by me, then plz delete it as you are an admin yourself, but please don't make the things round and round. If anybody doing any edits on the file on my behave is me, then logically the another account, which went through edit war is you. Is this possible? I accept my mistake to ask your guidance and suggestion. I would like to request experienced admins to check the IP address and any link between these 2 accounts rather, in state of suspecting anything and blaming me, Because That isn't me. Gbawden Sir, when there was an edit war, you banned my IP, but you didn't say, did you ban the IP of another person also? Edit war is war between 2 or more people, and the decission is not to be made with partiality as both of us commited same mistake. And finally, I cleared every point 1 week ago and I was waiting for the result from an exprenced admin, and I requested you on your talk page few days ago to check it. After 1-2 days of that incident this new issue arised. At past also, when I mentioned some links to put my point regarding notability, after 1-2 days of that, somebody tampered his IMDb account and removed his all credits. This is even more suspicious to me, because the author who went through edit war has agreed with my points and the issue for deletion was solved 1 week ago. Due to the unnecessary pressure made to me by the respected admin through his suspections and assumptions without a valid reason and the verbal abuse made by the user who went on edit war, I am leaving Wikipedia. Sorry to disturb you all guys, but please don't do personal attacks and don't give any mental pressure of this level to any new editors who want to contribute on Wikipedia, rather encourage them, teach them how the things goes and how to solve. I suffered a lot from past 2 weeks, I had to proof everything by the help of urls and research, but anybody could put alligations and suspections simply on the basis of their 6th sense or feelins only, which is morally very incorrect. The sentences that start with I feel or I suspect or I think is baseless, as the person isn't sure himself/herself. Rather she/he needs to be sure himself/herself first before puting any alligations on anybody. Respect mental health of fellow wikipedia editors please. Thank you HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Not only this time, but I believe you have done this in the past.
As to evidence, rather than 'allegations' - first and foremost, WMF has the technical readouts, so it really isn't necessary to supply evidence, as they can very easily look at stuff we can't. However, let's try these:
  1. in the commons image deletion discussion you said that you took this image and uploaded it here, yet someone else uploaded the same image. AND, with it being deleted, it is hard to remember, but is it possible that they uploaded it before you? Riddle me this - if you met this guy and took the picture with your camera, how did someone else get it to upload it. Especially if my memory is correct and they uploaded before you. Even if it was after you, that still would mean that in under a month of you taking the image with your own camera, that you posted it here AND someone else found the image online somewhere and also felt the need to upload it to commons... all for some guy no one has ever heard of?
  2. That same user who uploaded the same image as you, they also appeared on the wikidata deletion discussion for this same person. Because the first thing I do when I upload an image on commons is check to see if it has a wikidata item that is nominated for deletion. That makes total sense.
  3. Or, there's the fact that a file of this same name (visual image unknown due to deletion) was uploaded by another user before you.
  4. How about the fact that you are blocked on Simple English Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts.
Sure, some of that does not apply here because it is on other projects. But the behaviors can be used as justification for the investigation (particularly since it was used during the discussion process). So, let us add 'Every Time Wiki' and 'Taekwando1danblackbelt' to the CU list to see what we find. Quakewoody (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Diffs would be helpful if you are going to request COM:RFCU or M:SRG investigation.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't need diffs. I've seen enough and suggest we waste no further time on this self-promotional hopeful. And that's including AGF. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
As I find myself as a victim, I want to request COM:RFCU or M:SRG investigation and find whether the IDs mentioned below are related to me or not. I haven't done anything like that, I am sure, and I don't want to be accused of something I didn't do.

My ID : HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki
IDs that spoke on the support of my creation :
1. On Wikimedia Commons : Mobinaabbasi0
2. On Simple English Wikipedia : Hari Prasad1990, Sushila Ganesh, 2401:4900:32AA:AC94:8003:423B:E830:4CD5, क्षितीज

I don't know who they are, from where they came and spoke on his support, maybe they are his fans. But just by the fact that they supported the content, I shouldn't be accused that they all are mine. Sir, anybody can create an account now and do any edits, but why I am accused for the task which I didn't do? Just because I uploaded a picture, I should suffer like this and explain every body who just "feels" that this should be removed? You know my IP address and perhaps location also, check their same. Everything will be clear. And, about the photograph, Quakewoody got confused. The photo uploaded by me contains the Name same as photo deleted before, because of the copyright {I think, not sure}, as the Name of photo reflects the name of Person, just the name is same, but the photograph uploaded at past and now are completely different, which admins can check it. Also he told that, the photo which was taken by my own camera and uploaded by me, File:Sandesh Lamsal.jpg was uploaded already by another user, which is also wrong. That particular photo was uploaded here by me on 2 November 2020, and if anybody finds that the same photo was already uploaded somewhere {even outside of Wikipedia}, I will agree for any punishment given by admins, if not then the person putting false accuses on me should be punished, as putting false accuse on fellow authors intentionally because of personal interest on something / somebody goes against Wikimedia policy. Lastly, as far I know, the notability is decided by the help of articles present about the person on Internet but not on the basis of what I feel or think, and I found a lot of articles about him within the period of 4 years on 3 International Languages published on Paper and digital media of 3 different countries, including IBT, OS Nepal, Celebrity Nepal, Swasthya Khabar, Daily Hunt, and Russian Diplomatic Journal like Consul. Is it my mistake that I found a lot of articles on his behalf which made me think about his notability, as I am not saying anything without any evidences? Dear Admins, I am not able to concentrate on any other works and my exams from past 2 weeks due to this issue because of the personal interest of some authors who just come to comment without doing any research as in the response I have to do research and answer them. So, please do a deep research once yourself, and give the appropriate judgement to this topic. Please, Let admins decide the result, and I am ready to answer every questions to the admin, but I can't address the same question many time to many people. HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  Comment If it's your picture, please upload a version with complete EXIF data. The present version tells us nothing. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done -   Confirmed that HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki is a sock of Taekwando1danblackbelt. Only the latter was checked (indeed, we do not accept self-check requests per COM:RFCU). @Gbawden: Going forward, this is what COM:RFCU is for. In this case, as a example of the evidence we would like to see: Taekwando1danblackbelt uploaded File:Sandesh Lamsal.jpg 20 September 2020, which was deleted 21 September 2020. HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki then uploaded a new image under this file name 19 October 2020, which was deleted 19 October 2020. HowCanYouDoThisOnWiki's upload was sourced to a Flickr account with the username "taekwando1danblackbel" which is, of course, telling. Эlcobbola talk 21:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Эlcobbola: Noted with thanks Gbawden (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Moalswoo

For your information: I blocked a user for a year for what he said in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurdish majority Turkey-es.svg, and hided the edits. Taivo (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Good block. No reasonable editor would have believed such comments acceptable. I've retained their !vote, however, without the attacks and vitriolic nonsense. Feel free to remove it if it's felt not even that should remain. Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue is -of course I cannot know it for sure but I imagine- this is a sockpuppet. They knew that they would only lose a username that they opened for this purpose. Admins have more experience than this scribe. Thanks to both. --E4024 (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Moalswoo now indef'ed per socking. Эlcobbola talk 19:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo, Elcobbola, and E4024: Another sock is Stupid E4024 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to Admins: This SPA has now gone to vandalize my talk pages in various WPs. Could you possibly do something to get this account globally locked? Thanks a lot for what you have already done and also in advance for whatever else you may. --E4024 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  Done. Moalswoo and all his sockpuppets are globally locked. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Falk2

Again this obnoxious troll with his eggregious penchant for insult and uncorrectable inability to understand COM:OWN and COM:OVERCAT:

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done. My German language is only on beginner's level, so I learned new cursewords here, but Falk2 is now indefinitely blocked. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Vndlsm?

Special:Contributions/Ashfaaaq. Thx. --E4024 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vwls rqrd.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  Blckd nd clnd-p. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Subham845412

Can someone delete the remaining uploads of Subham845412. All images are either syndicated news images or instagram images without release and uploaded here as 'own work'. Also, please deal with the account as appropriate. Given an end copyvio warning, but has continued to upload copyvios after that. Thanks —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Gamziko

I've recently noticed user Gamziko (Contributions) has uploaded multiple non-free files to Commons, most of which have been deleted. Despite his contibutions seeming to start in 2020, his talk page at User Talk:Gamziko seems to date all the way back to 2013. Despite multiple warnings ignored in his Talk page, including a last warning from administrator Yann in 2015, this user has continued to upload copyright violations to the website for over 7 years at this point, which I believe should be grounds for the user to be blocked! GameIsWikipedian (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Ceray1270

I received the following by email, and checked with the sender User:Ceray1270 that it's OK that I put it here. I'm quite ill, and in no state to make judgments like this myself right now. I have taken the liberty of correcting some of the spelling, etc., but this defied being completely cleaned up - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Begin passed along

I am requesting an unblock because the original block by User:Ronhjones I felt was unjustified and the reason he gave was very incorrect. The argument over some post that had to do with alleged copyright issues was out of hand and I felt that the administrator in question had no operation concepts or precepts of US copyright laws as well as a California state law, where I live regarding images, etc. that are part of the California Public Domain law which includes city flags, seals, and so on. Also, that the accounts in question Ceray1270 and Ceray70 ARE NOT IN ANYWAY SOCKPUPPETRY as Ronhjones claims and are valid accounts and I am not abusing this service to contribute positively to the Wikipedia commons community.

Sad to say i have also found out that Rohnjones has passed on and thus also request that this appeal to unblock be granted.

If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to message me or get back to me at your earliest convenience,

Thank you in advance for your attention to the matter in question.

Christopher R. Cotton Ceray1270 and Ceray70 on Wikipedia

END passed along Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Walter Grassroot

Walter has made nothing wrong. I admonish 1233 for making frivolous accusations. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2020 (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'm writing here because of his toxic behavior and assumption of bad faith when discussing his problematic uploads, which include content that should be deleted (news content not used elsewhere). I pinged him for discussion dealing with the content, at Commons:Help_desk#.webm_Uploads_by_User:Walter_Grassroot, as I fear the whole issue may result in mass deletion of videos that weren't used. However, it only resulted to personal attacks and attacks against a geographical (Hong Kong) group. I do not think his actions are civil , especially when he gave fake allegations and seemed to try undermine my credibility instead of dealing the problem of uploading unused educational content.--1233 (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I am confident that I have a higher comprehension of what a "project scope" is than 1233, who had uploaded almost no files onto Commons (less than 0.3% of my contributions at Wiki Commons). Meanwhile, I have my right to upload videos from Chinese state media with proper licensing, and you can feel free to upload as many videos from Voice of America or whatever anti-China outlets as you wish (and yes, please sir.). But you probably will not do that because you are less interested in actually contributing Wikimedia projects and go through the laborous encoding, uploading, and sorting process, but just fingerpointing at anyone you disagree with politically. Wikimedia Commons is a place where videos can be uploaded for archival and reference purposes without being used on any other Wikimedia projects. All files should be uploaded onto the Commons instead of local projects like Wikinews, as 1233 wrongly indicated. Walter Grassroot (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, wrongingly assuming others having control on something and assuming others' intention as actions at bad faith is completely acceptable for a long-time contributor. I don't see you being different from the Kubura case. "actively contributing" includes not only direct participation but also the governance, etc. There are practical issues here and I'm just trying to point out. Now? Just another try to dispute to others' creditability of bringing completely normal issues. Your reply did not even dispute that you are doing all these "bad faith" stuff. That's why I came here to really put forward the problem of bad faith. I do not see your use of these videos in Wikipedia necessary, and these videos' use can be cropped, or use in another way.--1233 (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Walter Grassroot has given a strong case. I hope 1233 stop expressing wrong ideas, wiki-hounding and randomly deleting. --DavidHuai1999 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    Wrong ideas: where is wrong: check COM:PS#EXEC. Randomly deleting: nope, I didn't do that, someone (at Help desk) told me to delete three worst webm content he uploaded, but I can't scan through all, so I randomly pick some and just delete whatever the three that I found out of scope. Wiki-hounding? No, it is not me who first bring all the issues. I hope to resolve it (e.g. find a better solution) rather than just continue delete every single thing.--1233 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Since this discussion has now been split several places, allow me to repeat my remark from elsewhere: Offhand, I see no reason to think any of these are out of scope. Most files on Commons are not used on any other WMF projects. If Walter is running 50% use on WikiNews, that would suggest a very high ratio of highly relevant files. Note, also, that for any "sufficiently free" media, we prefer that it be uploaded to Commons rather than to any sister project. - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 26 November 2020 (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.

User:Official TusharSahu

This user needs a short block to wake up before being blocked forever. No, I did not inform them yet. --E4024 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I see CptViraj has given them a warning Gbawden (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Fedor-media and OTRS

Note to colleagues. This user has uploaded a string of images with commercial links. I have removed the commercial links and informed the user that promotional links are not allowed. Now the author is telling me that they are not their images insrtead those of the organisation. I have requested that OTRS be undertaken for the uploaded images, though only marked nine with the template. So for those who have admin and OTRS access, it would be good to just keep a watching eye.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Curiosity

Are User:Xufifcn and User:Imran khan1 two different sockpuppeteers? --E4024 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Shakshak31

Uploading copyvios after warning and re-upload of deleted file. --E4024 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done Blocked by Эlcobbola Gbawden (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User:AO-Hotels-and-Hostels

The user seems to impersonate de:A&O Hotels and Hostels company and uploading copyright logos related to the company like File:Aohostels.png and File:AO Logo.svg, even being warned previously. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. They can be unblocked with OTRS Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Heba Aisha

Issues are resolved:

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.

My uploads are being nominated for speedy deletion by Heba Aisha with absurd reasons. HA is comparing my image(an original photograph) with an engraving(Even the caption of her upload reads "From a Photograph")[1] HA is hastily asking other users to get my upload removed.[2] Earlier I got a message from EugeneZelenko that my upload lacks additional information[3] whome Heba had pinged. When I provided all the required information, she is unethically nominating the image for speedy deletion.

Heba Aisha is taking revenge from me as recently I had challenged her upload on wikipedia (en)[4]. She took up it to admin[5] and when she saw her loosing the argument, now targeting my uploads and want it to be deleted anyhow. I ask the admin to protect File:Rajput rebels from Bihar, 1857.jpg Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anony20 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Plz check...the user has been uploading non free copyrighted image on the commons. One such image was deleted as it was facebook image.I believe that other images are too fraudulent.Recently I wanted admins to take note of one such image but he removed delition tag.One such image uploaded by user is deleted recently.Also if an image is nominated for speedy delition the user who challenge it should replace it with normal delition tag but he removed the tag altogether. [6]was Copyvio from facebook.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Check this image too.It is also a Copyvio. The user has been violating policy continuously. And then arguing himself of being the right holder.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I just want to point out that this seems to be an English Wikipedia dispute that's being escalated to Commons, when it should be settled over there. I'm not an expert on Commons policy and I might be mistaken, but I see no valid reason for deletion provided by Heba Aisha. The disputed image (linked above) is File:Rajput rebels from Bihar, 1857.jpg, the date of which makes accusations of copyright violation seem bizarre to me - I don't understand the relevance of the image posted on the right here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious HA is taking her wikipedia(en) dispute to wikicommons. Repeated nomination of my uploads for speedy deletion is utter outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anony20 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 December 2020‎ (UTC)

I saw only one, which is a file taken from Facebook. E4024 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I am tagging here the repeated nominations[7],asking other users for deletion[8][9], Nominated for deletion[10]. From where the dispute started on wiki(en)[11][12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anony20 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 December 2020‎ (UTC)
yes its a facebook file...and copyrighted I think.The user has edited it to remove the source which I provided I.e facebook to hide copyright infringement.[13] see Heba Aisha (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee has mistaken. I am saying that the image above posted i.e of gateway(if his colleague has taken it.....he could ask for more info like camera etc metadata) is Copyvio. See source I provide in above comment. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Plz check with edit history of this gateway where Anony20 removed tag in which source was also there. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Check edit history of this filesee here [14] tagging adminJeff G. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Heba Aisha: I can't delete files here, I'm not an Admin here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
So what's your complaint about File:Rajput rebels from Bihar, 1857.jpg all about then? You have been pursuing that too, for what looks to me like obviously inapplicable reasons, and I find it hard to see good faith in that nomination. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I am seeing that Heba Aisha is now concerned with [[:]]. As I have mentioned in my edit[15], this image is shared amongst many and it will not be surprising if HA could find it somewhere else posted too. I would like to make it clear that this recent 'speedy-deletion' war which Heba is doing is not good in any way. Even the facebook post she has shared mentions "Source: Facebook" as it's freely available and I can't calculate how many persons are in possession of it till now. If it is a copyright infringement, then admin can decide to delete [[:]], that's why I've left deletion tag there. But nomination of each and every upload of mine is seriously outrageous.Anony20 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Is facebook image allowed on wikipedia??? While uploading images a tab comes which explicitly says that image from facebook etc are not allowed and only those we take ourselves are allowed. Correct me if I m wrong?Heba Aisha (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee for that image I understood it as the duplicate image of yet another image, which is a criteria for speedy delition. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It is clearly *not* a duplicate, as a photograph is not a duplicate of an engraving. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me tell in a nutshell. Those who edit english wikipedia must know about Sitush. There is a consensus that image of notable person of a caste shouldn't be put at the top of caste article as they donot represent the whole caste. User:Sitush/Common#Castelists contains many other rules. But Anony20 has uploaded a duplicate image of Kunwar Singh a notable warrior on commons and using it on Bihari Rajputs. He has just changed captions.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't taken that from facebook, pls don't misquote me, period. Again you are taking the wiki(en) dispute to wikicommons, which is in a sense of revenge. Seeing the constant misleading accusations, nominations for speedy-deletion of each and every post, encouraging other users to delete my uploads in a sense to take revenge of wikipedia(en), I would like to know if Heba Aisha could be banned from wikicommons or restricted from making further deletion nominations? @Boing! said Zebedee: Anony20 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Heba Aisha, what you should or should not use to illustrate an English Wikipedia article has got *nothing whatsoever* to do with what you can upload on Commons. The two are separate projects, and Commons is not in any way bound by En.wiki rules and conventions. If you have a complaint about an image uploaded on Commons, you should stick solely to Commons policy - anything Sitush (or anyone else) says about En.wiki articles has no relevance whatsoever here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Fresh Allegation by HA

@Boing! said Zebedee: see this[16], HA is making a fresh allegation against me that I am engaging them at multiple platforms, but as you know who has taken wiki(en) dispute to wikicommons. HA is wikibullying me by pointing out every uploads of mine en:WP:Wikibullying and asking for deletion en:WP:NPA. I feel a ban or restriction on Heba may end this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anony20 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Ok Boing! said Zebedee...we are discussing at en wikipedia.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Anony20, they are not mere allegations. You are putting msg on my talk page. On Bihari Rajput article and at en:WP:AE too.You are also tagging other editors on talk page of that article in a bid to block me anyhow.see [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/991719167] [17] Heba Aisha (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I have tagged other editors as you wanted to remove my wikicommons uploads anyhow. You mislead the admin on wiki(en) and wikicommons that the image is a duplicate then quoted it as a poor quality image, so that it could be deleted. I tagged other editors so if they could explain you why the images are not duplicate. As I've stated earlier wiki works on consensus and facts, there's neither monopoly of you nor me.Anony20 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I m aware of the fact and not only me But another editor also objected to the pic of king on caste article. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


But I will like to discuss it at the wiki only. Also, my concerns were genuine and objections to image which I found on facebook is not targeting.WP:Copyvio is a serious issue and facebook image fall in that category. I will still like to listen from admins that whether facebook image is allowed? [18] as u have uploaded? Heba Aisha (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at my previous reply. You have already asked this multiple times and I've answered it. You're again misquoting me.Anony20 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I m asking admins...not to you.Uploading others image and claiming that taken by colleague.(one of ur image which was deleted was also a facebook image from the page of an organisation of caste and it is from same organisation's page.It seems objectionable that all images which your colleague took is used by same organisation.)While removing speedy delition tag you have said that it is taken by ur colleague and you don't know ...that how much ppl possess it right now. But doesn't it sound strange that all images are present on an organisation's facebook page.It seems you have taken it from there .Heba Aisha (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Search this image [[:]], I bet you can find atleast two or three uploads of this on Facebook. You are again wrong by saying that both the images are on same facebook page[19], see the image [[:]] which you got deleted[20](you've mentioned a different facebook page[21]) and to be noted it was an artwork and I didn't removed it's speedy-deletion tag(I could've appealed for it too), now see this [[:]][22](Here you've mentioned this facebook page[23]). Both these pages are different. Like what you've said here that I used images from an organization's facebook page stands cancelled, if an image is available in public domain it can be used by anyone without a copyright infringement.I hope it clears your query.Anony20 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
No, the use on 2 3 website don't mean that you have taken it urself. Those who are using may be violating copyright which is not a big issue in India. If you have not downloaded facebook image then additional metadata should be there below the image or you should have more copies of that.But it is not so...Heba Aisha (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone plz see if an image is available in public domain it can be used by anyone without a copyright infringement. He is contradicting himself.Earlier in edit history he says it was taken by his colleague... Now from this comments it revealed that he understood image from one or two website as being in public domain. Jeff G. You have added category to that file.Plz see its not his own work and others work. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't help you if you are bad in English. I've made my stand clear and don't feel I need to further clarify it. If you want more copies then you can meet me, if that could solve your problem.Anony20 (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sir Elcobbola plz see this false complaint.And consider Anony20 uploads which I believe...not free images. Even I have shared that one of the image he uploaded was from facebook. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2020 (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.

User:Laurel Lodged

User:Laurel Lodged is violating our policies and guidelines in various ways.

  1. They removed every subcategory from Category:Nagorno-Karabakh on 25 October 2020 without a prior discussion or consensus. (Examples: 1, 2.) Then they started a category discussion and said that category should be deleted. en:Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) and en:Republic of Artsakh (RoA) are different topics. NK is a geographical and historical region. On the other hand, RoA is a de facto country. NK is larger than the RoA, since the latter lost a great amount of its territory in 2020. They are not identical. Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was an administrative unit of the USSR. It existed long before the RoA. Thus Category:NKAO cannot be a subcategory of Category:RoA. The parent category should be Category:NK.
  2. Following the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the latter regained its former territories occupied by Armenia. I removed the irrelevant categories from Azerbaijan-related categories. (For example, I removed Category:Cities in the Republic of Artsakh from Category:Jabrayil, since it is no longer controlled by the RoA. It is not even part of the historical region of en:Nagorno-Karabakh.) They reverted my edits and claimed that "categories are not always about current political realities", "categories cater for past and current realities", "historical context is always useful in category navigation". These claims are baseless. Commons:Categories does not support such claims. It's like adding Category:Cities in Germany to Category:Prague, since Prague was occupied by Germany in the past.
  3. They move categories and give them irrelevant names. They call this action "re-purpose". (Examples: 1, 2, 3.) This is a violation of Commons:Categories.

Above-mentioned edits, which follow a certain pattern, are biased and disruptive. Administrators should take an action.--BSRF (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Procedural Note The complainant has not listed the polices allegedly violated. How can I reply to unspecified charges? That's unjust. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply This user made additions to the Category:Nagorno-Karabakh while a discussion was still open. I requested that he stop making substantial changes while the discussion is open. He seems to think that his opinion in the discussion will prevail; I do not think that it will prevail. In any case, no substantial changes should be made while the discussion remains open. I restored the situation to the status ante bellum. He has also been emptying categories out of process. See Category:Bridges in the Republic of Artsakh which @Túrelio: has kindly restored. He does not get the point that while a political entity may cease to exist, it does not follow that the categories associated with that entity become irrelevant. If one wants to knows what bridges used to be in the Republic of Artsakh, then one needs Category:Bridges in the Republic of Artsakh. By the way, he also seems to assume that the Republic of Artsakh no longer exists. This is unsupported by reliable sources. The re-purposing of categories was a convenient way of making use of empty categories for categories that needed to be created. Otherwise I would have had to do 2 steps: delete a category and create a new category. Since they were all in the same territory, why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone? All of the re-purposed categories are legitimate. He is correct to say that "NK is a geographical and historical region". Hoever, he then uses the category as a vehicle for political entities. Had he confined himself to geographical pictures, he might have had a point. There is no political entity in Commons that does not fit into 1 or more of the current political categories of Category:Republic of Artsakh or Category:Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. There was no political entity called Nagorno-Karabakh unless one wants to go back to a medieval khanate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The complainant is up to his old ways again. I warned him that that the Bridges category had been re-created. What does he do? He starts to empty it again. See here. This is highly disruptive behaviour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You can start another discussion about my so-called "disruptive behaviour". This section is about your biased edits. But now that I'm replying, the bridge in the image you mention is located in the former en:Hadrut Province. Even the English Wikipedia says "Hadrut was a province of the self-proclaimed RoA." That bridge is now located in Azerbaijan. But you keep adding irrelevant images (like this bridge in Armenia) to that category just to prevent its deletion.--BSRF (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(sigh) It was a bridge in Artsakh's Hadrut province, therefore it is a valid member of Category:Bridges in the Republic of Artsakh. It will always be in Artsakh. As has been explained to you many times now, categories serve navigation purposes. To read about history, go to the relevant Wiki article. We still have a category for the Colusseum parented to Ancient Rome. It will always be in Ancient Rome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(sigh) Colusseum was built by the Romans. That's why it is included in that category. Those bridges in Azerbaijan were not built by the RoA. Those bridges in Azerbaijan are not located in the RoA. You don't want to see the difference because your edits are biased.--BSRF (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
By that logic the Colosseum should not be parented to the modern Republic of Italy since they did not build it. Things are in Italy that the Italians never built. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The Colosseum is located in modern-day Italy. Thus it has a place under the Category:Buildings in Italy. That bridge in Azerbaijan is no longer located in the unrecognized RoA. Thus it has no place under the Category:Bridges in the Republic of Artsakh. You claim that "It will always be in Artsakh." This claim is baseless per our guidelines. It's like claiming "Category:Bridges in Prague will always be in Germany." and adding Category:Bridges in Germany to that category. Just meaningless and biased.--BSRF (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@BSRF: Please make up your mind about the bridges. First you say it's about who built it. Now you say it's about where it's located. Which is it? And who says that it has to be located in current political entities? Bridges and castles that were formerly located in former political entities can retain that parentage. For example Category:Harzburg is parented to Category:Castles in Harz (a town in Germany), Category:11th-century castles in Germany (Germany did not exist in the 11th century) and to Category:Imperial castles which is in turn parented to Category:Holy Roman Empire. So then, a former state has category links to structures that still stand but which are located in different, modern countries. The same goes for bridges and Artsakh. Show me the Commons policy that says otherwise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The complainant @BSRF: continues to make disruptive edits to the Bridges category. See here, despite the above clarifications on Commons policy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While people do not make vandalism I do not like to discuss them here, but being an SPA (and I am not referring to being an SPA for, say, "cubism in French art", but being an SPA for nationalist POV issues) is not nice and brings people here. Look at the contributions of the person who reported you, Laurel, and then look at mine also: We are trying to contribute to "everything" in Commons. Later look at your contributions... I will not say one more word and will not return here, please do ignore me. There is too much to do in Commons than trying to control you. Bye. E4024 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The political bodies should be subcategories of the region, since they're just one aspect of the region, and not the other way around. Just like the category European Union is a subcategory of the category Europe. Timeframe or which is larger doesn't matter. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Waqarhuss1122

Possible block evasion by globally locked LTA w:User:Shameel Done

recreated File:Shameel Khokhar News.jpg. See also globally locked w:user:Aliwaqarr, whose deleted contribs include File:Shameel Khokhar News.jpg Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I reported them at M:SRG#Global lock for Waqarhuss1122 and tagged the file.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Fitindia: Thanks! And their file?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  Deleted. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Fitindia: Thanks again!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User:咽頭べさ

File:Mon National Day.ogg was uploaded by User:咽頭べさ without explicit permission (probably copyvio). The user explained the status of file on the file talkpage with accusing an ethnic as dangerous. The user also received multiple copyvio and permission notices. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 04:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Remitamine

Remitamine has been uploading a lot of copyvios (see their talk page); should be formally warned. Funcrunch (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I warned the user formally. Please do that next time yourself. Taivo (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I Already got the warning before[24], and i did explain the misunderstanding that has happened[25], and since then i did go through the overwrites that i did before(mainly VOA News images) and did report the ones that i've found to be CopyVio and i'm continuing to do so[26][27][28][29], and as i explained in the other issue, i don't upload new images, i'm improving(Higher resolution, remove watermark, add Exif Metadata, etc...) on images uploaded by other people using the same source used in the original upload, so the original uploader is the one that should be blamed for CopyVio not me.Remitamine (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

JosueHoracio

This user upload lots of images that are out of scope and unusable for an encyclopedia (screen capture of text, photo of blood from his cat, etc...). Could an administrator contact him to remind that Wikipedia is not a dump for his spur of the moment photos.

Pierre cb (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand and I'd gladly want an administrator to take down those photos if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosueHoracio (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  Done I have blocked the user - he clearly has no understanding of scope or copyright, and has used at least one sockpuppet. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ø11

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ø11: They should be kept as redirects, as in {{Category redirect|''name''}} to preserve existing links to them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Indudhar Haleangadi

Repeatedly uploading copyrighted images as cc-by-sa. Sentausa (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done Warned. @Sentausa: you can warn users yourself if you like Gbawden (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"self-reporting"

I'm sort of "self-reporting" here. I believe what I wrote here is appropriate, but I have a feeling the person to whom it is addressed will disagree. At this point, I'm walking away from this situation, but another admin may wish to become involved. If you feel it is more appropriate to ping the user in question on this thread, I don't actively object to that. - Jmabel ! talk 07:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think it was appropriate, the user had a chance to turn on email access and chose not to.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Pandakekok9

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

For god's sake, can you just chill? Instead of discussing about it calmly on my talk page, you immediately escalated it into the ANU. Since when have we become the tone police? Apparently getting straight to the point without any bull* distractions is now a "behavioural problem". Your escalation here reminds me of Fastily reporting me to enwiki's SPI just for calling out his unjustified deletion of a newbie's article draft. pandakekok9 14:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  Not done I don't think pandakekok9's tone in their original post was harsh, but I ask pandakekok9 not to use words like "bull*" on Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I got frustrated by Jeff here immediately escalating the issue to ANU, hence my cursing. I will try to control myself. pandakekok9 01:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Tamaszek

The user seems to upload images that lacks license previously. Recently, the editor has uploaded a series of book covers that violate copyright. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 16:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Rgalo10

Repeatedly reverted my DRs at File:R188s 7556 with new LCD Advertisement Screens.jpg with inappropriate edit summaries. Sysop intervention would be appreciated. pandakekok9 03:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

And now they are messing up my talk page... pandakekok9 03:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9:   Done, blocked for a week by @Эlcobbola, Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
And then indefinitely without TP access, after another egregiously non-mellow outburst.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Bryan See / Starkiller88

Just a heads up, harassment posts by the banned user Bryan See (Starkiller88 among others on English wikipedia) have just started on the Commons. The IP is relatively consistent, you'll see an earlier harassing post on BatteryIncludeds talk page from earlier this year. Koncorde (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A user

As I always say, I try to avoid bringing people here. It is a very disturbing place. The other day User:Norsk81 took me even to the "Vandalism Board"! I waited until the discussion was archived and now making my own report (plus defend myself of baseless accusations). First of all I must regret that their baseless complaint "was not closed", and I, for being politically correct ("I must not make contributions while my contributions are being discussed") could not contribute to Commons for five days. Who lost? Commons. 99.9 percent of my edits are correct, and the wrong part are mistakes, never bad faith edits. Whatever.

My complaints about Norsk81

  • Firstly their false accusation about me. You can find it under the title: "Vandal and sock from Wikipedia is up to his old tricks on WC" (I suppose "WC" is Commons. And "vandal sock" myself.)
  • Secondly their false claims about my edits. Let me try to tell the story shortly. This person is an SPA. They are only interested in one person (PBUH). The only thing I did about this person was to "categorize" his category. As you may see at the page history, s/he removed all cats I added. These are all valid cats. I added the same to the person's Wikidata item and with references. (We do not use references here, but you can see them at Wikidata.) As we had a totally unnecessary sort of edit fight about this category, I avoided and removed one of my initial cats, but to no avail. I cannot know what is their relation to the person, but trying to possess anything in the Wikimedia system is not constructive. I even doubt this user removed those cats only due to my nationality and their perception of "other" nations. (I will explain.)
  • (Redacted)
  • At the above talk (not a very civilized one indeed) they try to explain the removal of one of the cats I added: (Redacted)
  • According to this user, "I am taunting ethnic Armenian material". How, by categorizing files and cats of people? Is it free to lie about others? "I am a racist and xenophobe and turkish supremacist"! Wow. However, it is only s/he who uses the word "Turkish" with a small t, while writes Armenians with a capital A three times at a row. This reminded me of the recently banned User:Moalswoo, who would also use "turks", remember? No, I never thought they have any relation, other than for some reason preferring "turk" when the correct word is "Turk". Only those people can explain why. Well, maybe even they cannot, if that is something not made consciously.
  • Ah, they also referred to three DRs opened by me, about images of ethnic Armenian people. However, they did not mention my many DRs about Turks. As a vandal Turkish supremacist am I destroying "ethnic Turkish material"? (BTW two of those three DRs were closed with deletion, FYI.)
  • Our short-lived relationship with her/him was broken at a deletion request discussion. See history here And s/he took me to the Admins Board insulting me both at my TP and at the complaint, as you may see. Why? Because I did not accept that they close a deletion request about an upload of theirs. This happened twice. I mean they reverted me twice. I did not insist though. I thought an admin, or some other people keen on these issues would do that. Nobody did. For me, as it is, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicholas Alahverdian Photo.jpg is not a legitimately closed DR. This user asked opinion to a respected colleague, Odysseus1479, who told them that their closure (second revert) was not correct. However s/he (I mean the user I am complaining about) did not do anything to correct their wrong doing.
  • Last but not the least, I did not make a specific notification to the user I am complaining about, firstly because I already told them so at my talk page. Secondly I thought they would have a boomerang effect as a result of their complaint on me, which did not happen. That is a bad record for Commons. That means we open the gate to people who wish to accuse others about old stories elsewhere. What a pity...
  • For me just a simple detail, but interestingly their meaningless complaint was almost seconded by some user, giving link to an unrelated previous complaint about me. That act was somehow helpful, it showed me another reason why some people should not be given the admin buttons.

Result: S/he has gone away. May come back. I do not ask for anything more than an apology. Nothing else. Do not sanction people, show them the correct way. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  • TL;DR As always from you, an over-verbose attack as to why everything is always someone else's fault. Someone who raised a valid complaint about you previously which you were clearly aware of, yet you refused to engage with. Your claim of a 5 day exclusion is nonsense. I would also remind you that you should have notified another editor if you raise them here, yet you failed to do that and you also, peculiarly, omitted their name from the section heading here to make it less obvious.
I have no sympathy here. Complaints about you were insta-archived to prevent any discussion, so clearly you are protected and there is no point in trying to discuss. But see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_88#E4024 as well. Your past sockpuppeting history is noted though and the claims of anti-Armenian bias would explain a number of your more bizarre deletion requests. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Nothing much to add from Andy. I am sorry that you feel wronged. Initial complaint was haste but I took it nowhere. You are valued editor and I do not want you to be barred. There was no action taken on the complaint against yourself and I did not persue it further. The discussion has been archived. You seem to have much time for Wikimedia and contribute well. My small 't' and capital 'a' is because I type with one hand. I only have one hand and this is autocorrect issue. I will capital all 't's for you in future when referring to Turkey. I am dearly sorry for the conflict. Since I have given an apology hopefully you will accept and we can move on. Thank you for your contributions. Norsk81 (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Norsk81: How can info about a person be a BLP vio if the person is dead?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User:EJSpaich

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

This user is mass-uploading non-free images of Biden administration personnel faster than I can tag them. Could an admin have a look? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  Comment The situation is not so bad. Copyvios have stopped after you warned him/her. Taivo (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Nnduongpt

Spam... [30] --ManFromNord (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him/her for a week and will delete the spam. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Elite4261

This user has been uploading headshots of allegedly himself, which got eventually deleted, without proof of permission. What to do about it? --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not done. No edits since September, block is not needed. Taivo (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Ninijyo

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

Uploading copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him/her for a month and will delete his/her uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and failure to disclose same

User:FabickCat has posted a photo of a local politician; notice the text of the caption, which serves to advertise a business apparently called FabickCat.I know how to do this in the en.Wikipedia, where I'm an admin; but don't know how to do it here. How do I request the blocking of FabickCat as a spam username used for publicity? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Hi, and welcome to Commons. Thank you for all your hard work on enwiki and for this report. I warned the user and started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FabickCat for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Leonel Sohns

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am so sorry Leonel Sohns 14:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
No, not a sockpuppet of VKras,
I can definitely say that user account 'VKras' belong other person. Leonel Sohns 14:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I really believes that i will not continue that. Leonel Sohns 15:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
See these edits: [31] and [32]. Leonel Sohns 15:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Unternehmen 96

User:Unternehmen 96 uploads photos supposedly depicting various villages of the Italian and Swiss Alps and has been "pushing" them for months on the Italian wikipedia; upon closer inspection, not a single one of them actually represents the location they are named after (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Unternehmen 96).

Occasional erroneous attributions would be understandable mistakes; this, on the other hand, configures systematic disruptive behavior. -- Rojelio (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Btw: I suspect User:Lombardo 82 to be a further sockpuppet: same username style, a single photo uploaded (originally named after Sagron Mis, in reality yet another picture of Livinallongo), and immediately used on it.wiki by the aforementioned long-term vandal. -- Rojelio (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I deleted most of their uploads as copyright violations, but let the blocking for checkusers (Lombardo is older account and must be the master, if they are related). Taivo (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid Lombardo's activity might be too old (9 months) for a CU check. -- Rojelio (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Porn hunter

75.118.192.21 (talk · contribs)

Could we please just mass revert this pointless anti-porn disruption? This is not copyright, ident or any other problem, just invalid nominations. "I have made it a crusade to weed out pictures depicting sex acts". --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done --jdx Re: 11:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jdx: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

sockpuppet of Luis camilo álvarez vega

Please block user:Lucho366 as it's yet another sock of the aforementioned user, and also of user:Lucho249 (blocked in past November, as you can see here). Same old story: the user is adding incorrect "no permission" tags. --Sfs90 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sfs90: Thanks, I reported them at M:SRG#Global lock for Lucho366.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  Blocked. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
They've made a big mess out there. I tried to revert as much vandalism as I could, but undoing it's a kind of slow process. --Kuatrero (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@CptViraj: please block and revert 190.90.18.114 (talk · contribs), it's back at it again --Kuatrero (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kuatrero: I added to my report.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  Done. I blocked the IP for a week, all edits are reverted. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks! Pinging @Sfs90, Kuatrero, Tks4Fish as a courtesy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: thanks for the ping, but I got here too late, sorry :( Linedwell has handled them :) Best, —Tks4Fish! talk•contribs 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo, Sfs90, Kuatrero, Tks4Fish, and Linedwell: The sockmaster is now operating as 181.48.34.162.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks for blocking that IP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: gblocked :) —Tks4Fish! talk•contribs 03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Tks4Fish: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Tks4Fish and Linedwell: Now it's Alfa247 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I think you would be interested into this case. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

... and then it was 181.63.37.231 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log and Lucho.Alvarez.2021 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Some files incorrectly tagged as "no permission" by Luis camilo have been deleted. I've asked Fitindia (talk · contribs) to restore one of the files I came across by, because it was deleted incorrectly. All those files should be semi-protected. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. I've checked Fitindia's deletion log and it seems to be the only one. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Luis álvarez vega goes further with 190.85.46.177 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log . When is it done? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 16:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker: It will be done when the user gives up or our officials realize that all the open proxies must be blocked indefinitely to keep the user and similar at bay.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Open proxies won't get blocked indefinitely at this wiki, enwiki too. It does mainly happen at the Dutch wikis of the WMF. (CC @RonaldB: for looking to this case.) Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 17:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lucho back at it at 190.165.52.187. Please revert and block. Kuatrero (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverts   Done. I've reverted the most, the other edits from the IP address have been reverted by others. I'm not able to block the IP address, because I'm not an administrator here. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker Overleg • CA 09:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Suzane.Rob2020 altering attributions to enable copyfraud

User:Suzane.Rob2020 seems to be a single-purpose account which is altering attributions on photos to support fraudulent copyright claims. See here for more context. The Land (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, search for all images altered to be 'by' the fake ' A. Sturdivant' - other names appear to be in use as well. The Land (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Another account perpetrating the same fraud: Special:Contributions/Davischai37 The Land (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
And Harrisabby (talk · contribs) Richard Symonds (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Appears these are related to Caleb.Coates (talk · contribs) Richard Symonds (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Another name being falsely attributed (by the three accounts linked above) is T. Rodgers, affecting similar types of images. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

LucasBailey (talk · contribs) seems to be another sock. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
And Peterhailey (talk · contribs) - same strategy, and editing coincides with User:Harrisabby. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
See also COM:ANV#"A. Sturdivant" is back and COM:AN#False authorship and subsequent copyright claims.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Isabelle Draper (talk · contribs) and Derry Cameron (talk · contribs) also has the same editing pattern. TommyG (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done. All the mentioned vandals are now indefinitely blocked and tagged. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Kandi

I am trying to remove a country from being shown as controlled by Bulgaria in the map File:Bulgaria-Theodore Svetoslav.png and the author (Kandi) is just reverting me for no reason violating COM:OWN. The only thing he has done apart from this is sourcing this map [35]. I replied to this by leaving two sources showing why this view is disputed and I offered discussing the issue in the talk page of the file [36]. He didn't reply, which isn't something new, as it can be seen in their talk page that the user does not respond to other ones [37]. He has had several conflicts with other users (for example in File:Bulgaria-Ivan Asen 2.png), in which he ignored sourced claims and reverted them without explaining anything. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Well regardless of who’s map is correct, you violated COM:OVERWRITE and also reversion warred. Bidgee (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The only point of COM:OVERWRITE I could have violated is "Controversial or contested changes", which is expected, should I just leave the file instead? And regarding reversion warring, what should I have done then? Report the user after the first revert? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Instead of fighting over this file, just create a new file, derived from this one with your changes incorporated. Then update the Wikipedias which use the map to your new updated one. TommyG (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
What's the point of uploading a new file instead of just fixing the inaccurate one? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
As per COM:UPLOADWAR you'd need to upload as a new file (say File:Bulgaria-Theodore Svetoslav (1).png or File:Bulgaria-Theodore Svetoslav (corrected).png, discuss on the Wiki it is used on for a consensus. Also discuss on the file talk page. If you keep overwriting, you will be blocked.
You should also have notified User:Kandi of this complaint (as stated at the top of AN/U "Notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this"), which you failed to do. Bidgee (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to discuss on the talk page but I was ignored??? And I thought it was enough with a ping in the section header. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The map I created is authentic. There is an authoritative source. It is known that Tsar Theodore Svetoslav ruled territories north of the Danube. Kandi (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kandi: Known by whom? According to what source(s)?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
"Political geography of the medieval Bulgarian state. Part two ( 1186—1396)", Petar Koledarov, Sofia, 1979, Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Kandi (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Those who say Wallachia was controlled by Bulgaria in the 1300s are a minority. I have shown several sources saying so:
None of these sources are Romanian, while I've only seen Bulgarian sources defending your stance. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be best for all if you upload your version as a new file instead. Contrary to most Wikimedia wikis, (copying what Colin would've said here) we are not really a collaborative project regarding files, because unlike articles on Wikipedia, which are always work-in-progress, files here are commonly regarded as "complete". Whether your version or Kandi's is the correct one, that's not for us to decide, but the wikis that will use it. pandakekok9 02:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Norasky53

All of Norasky53 (talk · contribs)'s uploads are copyright violations. Uploads have continued despite being warned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SIMM376

SIMM376 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Uploading copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done, blocked one week. Эlcobbola talk 23:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Elcobbola! --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Roger

How many accounts is he going to keep making?

.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

BevinKacon, Blocked User:RogerNiceEyes for a week for being used to evade a block. Not sure what to do after that, however... —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks like Kroger4 was an autopatroller. Given that they have been blocked on their (select one: sockpuppets | alternate accounts) for licensing issues, I think they need patrolling, so I revoked autopatrol. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This user has repeatedly used sockpuppets to evade blocks, uploads hundreds of copyvios with no interest in avoiding them, does mass uploads of questionably in scope photos with no attempt to curate them, and refuses to engage with talk page messages whatsoever. They're a substantial net negative for Commons, and I don't see any reason not to indef all of the accounts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
OK. I'm not familiar with the background here, but that definitely sounds reasonable. To be clear, I don't object to a modification of my block. Elcobbola, you blocked Eyes Roger and are also a CheckUser. What are your thoughts on blocking? Additionally, I suspect this user has additional accounts; is a check warranted? Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Aaaand Huntster has indeffed Kroger4. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice this post had been made. Indef seemed prudent given this is flagrant multi-account abuse. I yield to better minds. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Uploads by Pizzaking13

A number of uploads by this user are related to a fictional country (or something? not 100% sure what this is) called "Creeperopolis". These files are not used on any project and seem out of scope, yet many of them are in categories related to the real world, such as "Catholicism". I would suggest that these files are not only mis-categorized but also out of Commons' scope as they seem to be for the uploader's own use rather than any attempt to serve a legitimate educational purpose of any kind. Most of the problematic downloads are from 2019, and at least two files were deleted back then, but as derivative non-free works. It seems to me like an admn should look at deleting those files and, given their age, just have a quick word with the uploader about the purpose of Commons. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pizzaking13‎‎.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hgghghhg

Dynamopokos (talk · contribs)

First of all: I am absolutely no expert in the field of categories for railways. But a new user (registered 2020-12-25) has been acting quite radically since today with requests for quick deletions for photos and categories. I haven't found any discussions about this, and I don't know if this follows any established scheme for categorisation, but I think there is at least a need for discussion before more damage is done. --Smial (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Smial: Hgghghhg also has a confusing username. I notified them of COM:UPOL#Confusing usernames and this section.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Smial: They have been renamed Dynamopokos.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dynamopokos: @Túrelio: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 10:58, 26 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Pinging @Dynamopokos, Túrelio for Andy Dingley properly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've restored the 3 mentioned cats. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Two users, neither Commons:License reviewers, adding false License review templates to each others' files

It should go without saying that the files are not actually freely licensed.

I wouldn't be surprised if a sock check showed them to be the same person, but even if they are not, this is not something that we can just let go on. --GRuban (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, this is interesting. When creating the deletion discussion for all of one of these users' files, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Neelofafiance I realized that I had "met" this user before, and that they had previously tried to delete an even earlier deletion discussion for one of their files. Again, it should go without saying that all of their previous uploads have been deleted as copyright violations. --GRuban (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  Info I deleted their uploads as these were obvious copyvios and warned them about uploading such files. Anyway, it is quite likely that both accounts belong to the same person. --jdx Re: 01:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Did you consider warning them about pretending to be license reviewers? --GRuban (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually I did consider, but decided not to do it due to my lame English. Also it was very late and I was tired. --jdx Re: 10:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked both for a week due to vandalism. I am away on holiday from today - can someone please complete a check user for this? Gbawden (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Created, see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Neelofafiance. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Stefan Adam Zamoyski, podpułkownik.jpg

The editor uploading this photo, User:Zmf4, claims it as own work and licenses it accordingly. The photo of Zamoyski as a lieutenant-colonel, as the title of the photo states, must date from around 1940, when he held this rank and would have been in his mid-30s, which would be in accordance with his looks in the photo. User:Zmf4 in posting to English Wikipedia in 2015 in the article 'Adam Zamoyski' (Stefan Zamoyski's son) has noted (but without formally declaring an interest) "At the behest of Adam Zamoyski himself, amendments have been made which more accurately describe the matters described above" . It must therefore, at the very least, extremely doubtful that the photo of Stefan Zamosyski is User:Zmf4's own work. User:Zmf4, if s/he were indeed the photographer, would have been aged around 100 at least in 2019 when uploading it, and would be around 100+ now (s/he is still posting on English Wikipedia). The licence therefore cannot be valid. Should the file therefore not be deleted? Or is there some other process to query it?--Smerus (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Smerus: Please start a deletion request - which is the best way to deal with it instead of bringing it here, along with the rationale. Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

My attempt at explaining what had happened.

I went with two other users all the way to Peru to see if we could study the stone wall and prove that the Spanish stone plaza existed. When we arrived at the location, we took several photos but have only developed half of them at the time that I am posting this comment. The seat in front of the wall clearly demonstrates the design that was most approved of by the locals at the time that the Spanish stone plaza was built. For reference, please look at the picture below:

 --Kevin the forest librarian (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SIMM376

SIMM376 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has repeated copyvios. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  Done Blocked by Эlcobbola Gbawden (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Эlcobbola and Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User uploading copyvios

Lindonlulgjuraj has uploaded two photos that I've raised CSD-grade copyright violation concerns about. Granted, one was a bit of a gray area between "copyright violation" and "needs permission", but given that they immediately uploaded another, more blatantly violating photo instead of learning, it's probably worth keeping an eye on them. --I dream of horses (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Per his statement on his :en userpage, the uploader is the manager of the depicted person. Therefore, the upload might not be a copyvio, but requires OTRS-approved permission anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

موسى

Could someone advise or take action on the systematic anti-nudity speedies by موسى (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems they have stopped now. The escalation to AN/U seems a bit premature, IMO. Other than that, I agree that the speedies are disruptive. pandakekok9 18:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  Done. I warned the user. At moment that's enough. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User PMRMaeyaert

PMRMaeyaert (talk · contribs) today I became aware of a problems around uploads of PMRMaeyaert, problems others have adressed also, to no avail. He has uploaded tens of thousands of his own images, and it are good images, that's not the problem. But not only doesn't he categorize, he is also uploading duplicates, for years already. Reading his Talk page, I saw that he accused others of messing with at least 15.000 of his uploads, to which he gave an example: File:27439 Oudenaarde Eine Sint-Eligiuskerk 21.jpg. As anyone can see, but apparently nobody before me has, it was PMRMaeyaert himself who created the problem: he uploaded a file, the exterior of a church that is described in the filename, and minutes later he overwrote the file with an image of the interior of another church. The next in the sequence, nr. 22, has the same problem, so I fear this is a very mayor problem of thousands of files where the content does not match the description.

When I pointed this out to him, all he could do was brag about his collection etc. and he didn't take back any of the accusations. After that, he refused to further reply. At the same time, others made clear that also today he is uploading duplicates, in high speed.

So without bothering about what he called 'ravage' (havoc), he continues to give other people a lot of work to clean up the mess, ongoing while I write this. Would it be welcome to instant block this user, to take some time to consider how to correct this all? This can't go on. Eissink (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

This is an example of a duplicate he uploaded today: File:PM 092350 B Kluisbos.jpg (duplicate of File:Kluisbos PM 092350 B.jpg). I don't have the skills and means to mass identify duplicates, but it is to be feared that this is far from the only one. The Talk page learns that the uploader also tends to duplicate by later uploading low resolution duplicates. Another curious thing is that PMRMaeyaert, after all these years, still refuses to sign his comments, which makes communication even harder. Eissink (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC).
Final remark: after pointing user to this AN/U, he responded by maintaining that others have changed the file names (this concerns the first example I gave). It is hard to say if user is clueless or trolling, but to yet another request to sign his postings, by Jeff G., he responded right behind the date: "Thanks for advising", without signing. This all is not normal behaviour. Meanwhile he continues to high speed upload uncategorized pictures that might very well be duplicates. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC).
A random pick from the last ten minutes indeed gives a duplicate: File:PM 091046 E Granada.jpg (today) / File:Granada PM 091046 E.jpg (2015). Block this user now. Eissink (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

Since this might not be the right board, I copied the subject to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User_PMRMaeyaert. Eissink (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

File:Μονή Αγίου Παύλου.jpg

I wanted to use CropTool but forgot to save my work as a new file. Could you delete my actions? --Upp75 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Upp75, on the file page, near the bottom, you see the two pictures, the original and the crop. Left of the original, you probably see a button to undo the new upload: press it and then purge the page (button on top side of the page / might take some time before you see the picture return on the page, but below, at the file history, you can already see the result). Then you will see the original picture has returned, and you can then try a new crop. Eissink (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC).
I could have done it, of course, but I thought it's better if you do it yourself, for experience, but someone else already undid it for you. So you can make a new crop now. Eissink (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC).
@Upp75 and Eissink: For future reference, in the "File history" section, you should be able to click "revert" to the left of the version you want to revert to, and explain why. If the image doesn't seem to change right away, please see COM:PURGE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Isn't that exactly what I just said? Eissink (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC).
@Eissink: I used the actual names of the section and the link, and mentioned COM:PURGE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes, indeed you did. Bravo. Eissink (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

User:Executioners

I recently came across this user on COM:UDR while commenting and processing requests. They have a lack of understanding of copyright (e.g. Special:Diff/523507499), a complete lack of civility when responding, regularly uses IPs to respond uncivil messages (e.g. Special:Diff/523537765, Special:Diff/446080633, Special:Diff/523262336, Special:Diff/523747424, etc), and based on deleted contributions, has multiple accounts (e.g. 0guests0 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (ENWP checkuser blocked)). The user is blocked on English Wikipedia for behavioral issues. Please see en:Talk:List of combat vehicles of World War I. This is clearly a long-term, on-going, cross-wiki issue. I would block them myself, but since, I've been the target of the incivility by this user, I think it would be best if it were handled by another admin. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:FleurDeOdile overwriting

It seems that FleurDeOdile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) thinks it is ok to overwrite, even when the original uploader objects and completely ignores COM:OVERWRITE.

This seems to be an ongoing pattern, with the user blocked for edit warring over File:Amanda 2020 track.png back in June 2020 and resumed the disruptive behaviour in August 2020 (e.g. File:Laura 2020 track.png BananaIAm 13:20, 27 August 2020, FleurDeOdile 14:00, 27 August 2020 reverts to image uploaded by 00:40, 27 August 2020 and FleurDeOdile 15:22, 27 August 2020 reuploaded the image that BananaIAm had uploaded). Seems to me the user has a controlling ownership issue going by their userpage and behaviour.

They have already been warned twice to stop overwriting back in March 2019 from myself and in February 2020 from Juliancolton. Bidgee (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

how is it a overwrite violation? the image i uploaded was perfectly fine and centered and more high quality than his original image FleurDeOdile (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
As stated on COM:OVERWRITE "  Controversial or contested changes", maybe you should have the ability of upload removed until you can understand the policies and guidelines on Commons. Upload under a new file name (e.g. File:TL 02U 2020-12-11 0226Z (centred).jpg) when someone contests the change, rather than overwrite and edit war like you did at File:TL 02U 2020-12-11 0226Z.jpg. You clearly don't care or understand what you are doing is wrong and disruptive to the project. Bidgee (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
uploading as another separate file is pointless as there would be 3 images of the same thing and it would create a mess on what is the real image FleurDeOdile (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Bleki19

Bleki19 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 3 days. De728631 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, De728631. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Phillypaboy123

Phillypaboy123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user has repeated copyvios. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The copyright volations concering this are actually from offical us government twitter accounts. The pictures are from the reps as their offical picture. I, apolgize but I think these pictures are those the represenatives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Phillypaboy123: {{Please sign}} Eissink (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC).

I apolgize. I misunderstood the copyright law for US GOVERNMENT Related Pictures. I promise I will never do it again. I will accept any punishment adminstrators will give me. But my main purpose here is to help the wiki world.

User:Phillyboy123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Menthe 555

bonjour,

cet utilisateur a du mal à comprendre certaines règles de Commons. Il ne s'agit pas d'erreurs de débutant, il s'agit d'une pratique répétée qui ne tient pas compte des remarques faites amicalement par plusieurs utilisateurs (voir User talk:Menthe 555 plusieurs fois blanchie) :

Un admin pourrait-il lui fait un rappel de ces règles ?

this user has trouble understanding some Commons rules. These are not rookie mistakes, it is a repeated practice which ignores friendly remarks made by several users (see User talk:Menthe 555 several times bleached):

Could an admin remind him of these rules?

merci,

Tiraden (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tiraden: Violation de Commons:Deletion requests ? La demande a été fermé car le fichier vers lequel vous renvoyez est faux. De plus, un nouveau fichier a été téléversé depuis pour éviter toute confusion comme la votre (1er pas vers vous...). Attaques personnelles ? J'appelle au dialogue dans la citation que vous avez copié collé (2eme pas vers vous), alors que vous êtes toujours dans l'attaque mais jamais dans le dialogue constructif, de nombreux contributeurs de l'encyclopédie et de Commons se sont plaint de vous, c'est une réalité, pas une attaque. Cordialement. Menthe 555 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Tiraden: Violation of Commons:Deletion requests ? I sued the closed car the file you are referring to is false. In addition, a new file has since been uploaded to avoid any confusion like yours (1st step towards you ...). Personal attacks? I call for dialogue in the quote you copied pasted (2nd step towards you), while you are always in the attack but never in the constructive dialogue, many contributors to the encyclopedia and Commons are complaining about you , it's a reality, not an attack. Cordially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menthe 555 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sciencia58

On November 6 and 7 Sciencia58 added two pictures explaining that the phenomenon of ships disappearing behind the horizon is not due to the curvature of the earth but due to swell and changing point of view instead: File:Incorrect proof for the curvature of the earth.png and File:Erdkrümmung_-_Perspektive.png. This is a common topic in flat earth conspiracy theories, see e.g. [42]. Deletion of those pictures has been requested.

She also changed the description of multiple pictures showing ships disappearing behind the horizon calling this an "unproven hypothesis": [43]. I have reverted those edits today. She was blocked in German Wikipedia for a week because she also propagated this theory in de:Erdkrümmung and de:Sichtweite on November 6, some of which persisted for several weeks.

I suggest at least warning the user that those actions are not compatible with Commons' mission of providing educational media content. --Count Count (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Support, flat earth propaganda has no place on an educational project.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
This counts as disruptive editing, so justifies a warning. On a slight tangent to the specific case, media relating to conspiracy theories, fakes, and factually false propaganda may be suitable for Commons if described and titled accurately. It would be outside of Commons' scope to host media which would actively be anti-educational if reused in a Wikipedia article mistaking fake news for fact. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: Please feel free to suggest more appropriate filenames and descriptions on the DRs Commons:Deletion requests/File:Incorrect proof for the curvature of the earth.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erdkrümmung_-_Perspektive.png.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
These are user created fantasies, so the deletion is fine in my view, in line with COM:NOTHOST, so no need to invest more volunteer time. Had they been published elsewhere, with some significant footprint, there would be a keep rationale. --Fæ (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see my discussion page. I had never dealt with the Flat Earth nonsense before. I didn't know that the perspective effect was used as a bogus argument by the Flat Earth people. In order to refute their bogus argument, it is useful to know about this effect in our article and also the argument why one can still prove the curvature of the earth. I have changed the image caption accordingly and uploaded a new version.

Bitte schaut auf meine Diskussionsseite. Ich hatte mich noch nie mit dem Flat-Earth-Unsinn beschäftigt. Ich wusste nicht, dass der perspektivische Effekt von den Flat-Earth-Leuten als Scheinargument benutzt wird. Um deren Scheinargument zu entkräften, ist es sinnvoll, in unserem Artikel diesen Effekt zu kennen und auch das Argument, warum man die Erdkrümmung dennoch nachweisen kann. Ich habe die Bildbeschriftung entsprechend geändert und eine neue Version hochgeladen. Sciencia58 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To refute the bogus argument of the Flath-Earthers, one does not need to taboo the effect of the angle of view. The moon looks very small because the angle of view becomes more acute with increasing distance. That is a fact. The moon can be obscured by a house. That has nothing to do with curvatures. The ships become smaller, the obscuring effect of the waves in the middle ground becomes greater, and yet there is the curvature of the earth. That is why the ships disappear even before they have become so small that they are completely covered by the mounds of waves. This is the right way to refute the bogus argument of the flat-earthers. The claim that one can prove the curvature of the earth with a disappearing ship is not suitable, because even on a flat ocean the ship would become so small that it would disappear behind the waves in the middle ground. What is crucial is the time when it disappears. It disappears long before it is completely obscured by the perspective effect, like the moon behind a house. This is how one deals with false arguments in a scientifically analyzing way. Not by deleting everything from Wikimedia commons that has to do with perspective and angles of view, and not by deleting all photos of the moon because it can be obscured in the sky with one hand. What is important is the correct interpretation of the phenomena. One does not need to deny the phenomena as such. That would be a sign of weakness and a concession to people who draw wrong conclusions from a correct observation.

I should not have included the picture in the article without first discussing the purpose in detail, as this could have been misunderstood by some. I would like to apologise for that. However, the picture as such contains nothing offensive, nothing that should be tabooed out of an argumentative weakness. My contribution was not vandalism, but was meant to be a meaningful addition.

Um das Scheinargument der Flath-Earther zu entkräften, braucht man nicht die Wirkung des Blickwinkels zu tabuisieren. Der Mond sieht sehr klein aus, weil der Blickwinkel mit zunehmender Entfernung immer spitzer wird. Das ist ein Faktum. Der Mond kann von einem Haus verdeckt sein. Das hat nichts mit Krümmungen zu tun. Die Schiffe werden kleiner, die verdeckende Wirkung der im Mittelgrund befindlichen Wellen wird größer, und trotzdem gibt es die Erdkrümmung. Deshalb verschwinden die Schiffe schon, bevor sie so klein geworden sind, dass sie von den Wellenhügeln vollständig verdeckt werden. Das ist die richtige Weise, das Scheinargument der Flat-Earther zu entkräften. Die Aussage, man könne die Erdkrümmung mit einem verschwindenden Schiff beweisen, eignet sich nicht, denn das Schiff würde auch auf einem ebenen Ozean irgendwann so klein, dass es hinter den im Mittelgrund befindlichen Wellen verschwindet. Entscheidend ist der Zeitpunkt, wann es verschwindet. Es verschwindet lange bevor es durch den perspektivischen Effekt vollständig verdeckt wird wie der Mond hinter einem Haus. So geht man wissenschaftlich analysierend mit falschen Argumenten um. Nicht in dem man alles von Wikimedia commons löscht, was mit Perspektive und Blickwinkeln zu tun hat, und nicht in dem man alle Fotos vom Mond löscht, weil er am Himmel mit einer Hand verdeckt werden kann. Entscheidend ist die richtige Interpretation der Phänomene. Man braucht die Phänomene als solche nicht in Abrede zu stellen. Das wäre ein Zeichen von Schwäche und ein Zugeständnis an die Leute, die aus einer richtigen Beobachtung falsche Schlussfolgerungen ziehen. Sciencia58 (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ich hätte das Bild nicht ohne vorherige ausführliche Besprechung des Zwecks in den Artikel einfügen dürfen, denn das konnte von einigen missverstanden werden. Ich möchte mich dafür entschuldigen. Das Bild als solches enthält aber nichts anstößiges, nichts was aus einer argumentativen Schwäche heraus tabuisiert werden müsste. Mein Beitrag war kein Vandalismus, sondern sollte eine sinnvolle Ergänzung sein. Sciencia58 (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits like [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] are vandalizing edits whose pseudoscientific line of reasoning follows that of flat earthers. Sitacuisses took already the time to explain to Science58 why this is nonsense – so far with no success. The diagram File:Incorrect proof for the curvature of the earth.png was abusively inserted abusively in multiple wikis: [49], [50], [51]. @Sciencia58: we need a statement from you where you promise to refrain from distributing this nonsense any further at Commons. Due to the cross-wiki abuse we are already very close to global lock territory. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I promise, I will not add anything without prior consensus with other experts from the Wikipedia editors. I would be grateful if in future the relevant staff would comment on the discussion pages within a reasonable period of time, because that did not happen in this case. If you have the impression that no one has any objections, you think it's all right. Many colleagues in the German Wikipedia are very sparing with approval. It has become so common that no one says anything if they have no objections. Then one assumes tacit agreement. It would be helpful for further harmonious cooperation if this were to change. I promise not to make any more edits in these subject areas without prior consensus.

Ja ich verspreche es, ich werde nichts mehr ohne vorherigen Konsens mit anderern Fachleuten aus den Wikipedia-Redaktionen einfügen. Ich wäre dankbar, wenn sich in Zukunft die zuständigen Mitarbeiter auf den Diskussionsseiten in einem angemessenen Zeitraum äußern würden, das war nämlich in dem Falle nicht geschehen. Wenn man den Eindruck hat, niemand hätte Einwände, denkt man es sei in Ordnung. Mit Zustimmung sind viele Kollegen in der deutschen Wikipedia sehr sparsam. Es hat sich so eingebürgert, dass niemand etwas sagt, wenn sie nichts dagegen haben. Dann geht man von einem stillschweigenden Einverständnis aus. Es wäre hilfreich für eine weitere harmonische Zusammenarbeit, wenn sich das ändern würde. Ich verspreche in diesen Themenfeldern keine Bearbeitungen mehr ohne vorherigen Konsens vorzunehmen. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, let's not escalate things too quickly. It doesn't seem to be fair to characterize Sciencia58's edits as vandalism, as vandalism requires malicious intent, which Sciencia doesn't have. She even admitted that she should've gone for discussion first instead of boldly editing those pages. I don't think a malicious, abusive user worthy of a global lock [sic, I think that would require a global ban discussion] would do that. There's no need to threaten her with a global lock. Of course, if she persists in adding back her theory on our pages, then by all means block her, but clearly we are not at that level yet. And I hope we don't have to. pandakekok9 09:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ich weiß nicht sicher, ob alle Admins die beiden Löschdiskussionen mitlesen. Ich gehe davon aus, möchte das aber um es sicherzustellen noch hier verlinken.

I'm not sure if the admins here also read the deletion discussions. I assume so, but I would like to link both (english and german version of the image) here and here to make sure.

Ich wünsche Euch ein gutes neues Jahr. I wish you a happy new year. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Dr.Editorias

Again, after 2 blocks still uploading copyvios/non free. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked indefinitely - clearly not hear to contribute positively Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"We could not determine if this photo is suitable for Wikipedia."

I am editing a section of Patrick Keely, an architect in the 1800s. I am adding information about the church he built in Baltimore. When I try to upload the photo of the church, it says "we could not determine if this photo is suitable for Wikipedia." It's a photo of a church! I uploaded it in wiki commons but I cannot figure out how to insert it into my edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conneemarie706 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Conneemarie706: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload smaller (<50,000 bytes or <2,000,000 pixels) jpg images as a new user while leaving the summary intact and Special:AbuseFilter/156 by trying to upload smaller (<50,000 bytes) jpg images as a new user. Each jpg image you tried to upload is smaller, and you wrote it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads smaller images, they are copyright violations taken from the web. If you made the images yourself, please upload the full-size original of them, including EXIF metadata. If you did not make the images, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept them, and have the copyright holder(s) license them on their websites or social media or send the images and permissions via OTRS with carbon copies to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the images may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you change the summary or use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid filter 153. See also en:H:PIC.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jekfireblade1

All uploads are copyvio, user is blocked on the English Wikipedia for POV trolling. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done User warned per policy Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

user பெரும்பாண்டியன்2

பெரும்பாண்டியன்2 uploaded non own works. Issues: copyvios, screenshots, duplicate uploads, wrong license, etc. Admin should take action. --~AntanO4task (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a month Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pushing renaming request against the official guideline on Wikimedia Commons

User:Ke an tries to push renaming request of the file File:Siamion Sapieha (Sunigajła). Сямён Сапега (Сунігайла) (1709).jpg ignoring the file talk page (which I referenced here), where I explain that, according to the reliable sources, there is no obvious error in the file name. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It is vice versa, my request to rename was reverted (hidden) without any explanations 2 times without any argumentation. The discussion now started on the file Talk page and I hope the truth will be revealed without brutal reverts. It looks like the image uploader is not able to read and understand Latin which would answer many questions, I hope more fruitfull discussion. The current erroneus file naming introduces a mess into Wikipedia pages. -- Ke an (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to notice that I have started a discussion right after removing renaming request. I also provided there the reliable source that there is no obvious error in the file name. I'm glad my request here got the opponent to start talking. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Mosabxtyle22

Spammy nonsense:

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Killarnee

Not that I’m hugely invested in my personal privacy above a minimum decorum, nor that I have cause to feel above-average worries about meatspace safety and all that, but even so this felt like creeping too close to home, litterally. Killarnee got the ISP wrong, but the simple fact that a meatspace identification was attempted (especially in the context of a disagreement over Commons content and process) is unsettling in a way that my envolvement in Commons neither needs nor warrants. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Why so irritable? It was just a question. Sorry if it hit you personally, otherwise it is a mystery to me what else you want to hear from me. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The question is intimidating. Such behavior should not be tolerated. On other projects I've seen indef blocks for less. Eissink (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC).
  • I must say I also find it rather unpleasant to click on a photo on Killarnee's User page, the only object on that page, only to get ejected to killarnee.org, a site that user might explicitly use to collect the visitor data that he then mirrors back to Commons users. This is not okay. Eissink (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC).
No, I don't “collect” any data from others, and if so, then I wouldn't be seriously stupid and would publish them but would treat them confidentially. Please don't blame me for things I do not do, and that Tuválkin said that when I asked him about his ISP, I was wrong should have shown that I was only guessing. I had no bad intentions, in my opinion it was just a question and it really is a mystery to me why you are going to pretend I'm a criminal. But it's nice to know what you think of me, so I really lose the desire to do anything here at all. :( Bye -Killarnee (C•T•U) 10:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Killarnee: No one here should be "outing" private information about any other editor that they don't wish to make public. Consider this a serious warning. Next time someone has a valid complaint about you doing this, I'd advocate a short-term block, and it it happens again after that, a long one. - Jmabel ! talk 10:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Cassius of WWCC (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

This user upload numerous useless, often badly name, photos that seems out of scope for Wikipedia Commons. I already proposed some of them for deletion or renamed them but there is too many. According to this picture File:Zoom Screenshot 3 of Cassius Clark.png, he claim to be himself, this is a kid that input anything he sees. Can a administrator monitor this new user uploads and warn him what is the scope of Commons.

Pierre cb (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: I added to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cassius of WWCC and warned them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: I also notified them of this section for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done Final warning given per policy. Next time it will be a block Gbawden (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Gallimons

A user on the Dutch Wikipedia pointed out possible copyright problems of this photo. I think he is right. It is noticeable that the photos recently uploaded by Gallimons, given the camera location, were taken at the same address and were probably taken from existing books or magazines. Please take action. Gouwenaar (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that this concerns all uploads of this user. Gouwenaar (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done (Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Gallimons) Ciell (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I need your advise to improve some of the uploads I recently made. They are from books, but by anonymous photographers so there was no intention to harm any copyright. If they have to be removed, that is a pity, but is there another way to keep them? I am not really experienced in this field!. Gallimons (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gallimons: For each file, you need to give to the source, the author and a suitable license. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. In that case removing the files is the best option. Can I do that myself? (I would like to correct my own mistakes). Do I need to do anything else on this matter now? Please let me know!Gallimons (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:오솔이

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

It continues to upload comics from the 2010s, not from the Works not covered by public domain and CCL. The cartoon is also published in a commercially available magazine by a cartoonist named 'Na-gyeong Kim(김나경)'. (I am not good at English. I'm sorry.) --유미사카 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@유미사카: 여기 한국어로 쓸 수 있습니다. You may write here in Korean.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! 사용자:오솔이는 지속적으로 퍼블릭 도메인 및 CCL이 적용되지 않는 작품이자, 상업적으로 이용되고 판매되는 잡지 어린이 과학동아의 작품인 '이상한 과학 나라의 솔이 (Soli in Wonderland)'와 그 작품의 전작, 후속작으로 보이는 작품들의 스캔본을 지속적으로 업로드하고 있습니다. --유미사카 (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
User:오솔이 is a work that does not consistently apply to the public domain and CCL. Wonderland)' and its predecessors and sequels are continually uploading scans of the works.
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you for translating into English. --유미사카 (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@유미사카: 천만에요.
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Бмхүн disruptive overwriting

Бмхүн (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been actively disruptively overwriting files and completely ignoring COM:OVERWRITE. It certainly looks like this user is a sock of Anchuhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who did the very same actions. User:Nat had already had to undo and protect File:MDos khams Commanding Office.png due to Бмхүн continuing to overwrite. Бмхүн has been warned twice 1 June 2020 by Roy17 and from myself on 10 October 2020. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Arztgamal

Arztgamal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) repeated uploads of copyvios. Most recently File:I cell disease gingival hyperplasia.jpg. Was warned about being blocked by @Эlcobbola: back in October last year. TommyG (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

ImNotHamza

ImNotHamza has uploaded multiple copyright photos of Formula One drivers. Rather than having 10 separate deletion discussions, can an admin delete all the offending images (all are in their contribution log). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the deletion requests needed to be closed anyway I just clicked through all of them. These images were obvious copyvios and qualified for speedy deletion. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done Final warning given Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Pitandr

Pitandr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  re-uploaded copyvio after deletion: File:Валентина Талызина 2.jpg, File:Валентина Талызина.jpg. --188.123.231.15 12:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Final warning given Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:A.Savin

NO ACTION:
  • Templating an experienced user with 188K edits here on Commons, 337K global edits, and 10 years of service is a poor choice for communication especially with {{Test}} whose message is directed towards newbies, not regulars. However, this is not a personal attack.
  • Writing phrases like 'spreads his "charm"' is sarcastic and not helpful.
  • Escalating the issue directly to the administrators' noticeboard without first trying to resolve it between yourselves is a poor choice either.
  • This use of Rollback is fine because removing the license is a clear mistake, but this use is not fine. On the other hand, I can't understand the logic of using sortkeys for these files. Using HotCat for these *cryptic* edits is not fine either.
  • Both sides could act better, but no one went too far, hence no action is required. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2021 (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.

User A. Savin left this on my talk page. Obviously the reason was my sorting of files. Whatever you think about sorting files, user A. Savin has no right for a personal attacking disgusting comment concerning me as regular contributor on commons for years. Some users think of their contributed files as personal belongings. His statement does not criticize or discuss. His only obvious purpose is offending. He is acting strictly against commons guidelines as PA and AGF. This behavior of pure motivation to offend other contributors must not be tolerated, because this will give reason for other contributors to stop contributing. Necessarily I want to ask an admin to remind him how to behave on commons and not to attack other users and that he risks to be blocked from the project next time he spreads his "charm".--Oursana (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi @Oursana: I sorry if you felt attacked by such a message. However, it appears that the message left on your talk page appears to be a templated message, with no inappropriate additions. On another matter, it appears that you did not notify A.Savin of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page, nor did you discuss the issue with A. Savin before posting here. It is customary to discuss and attempt to resolve the dispute with the other involved party prior to starting a discussion on AN/U. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
As a general point, many of the standard Commons messages are threatening and offensive, considering they are often used in a context where those threats are completely irrelevant. It's one of the reasons for creating Category:Talk page trimmer which cuts out all the unfriendly boilerplate text.
It would be super if the warning templates were reviewed to be more "friendly" rather than read like cold hard bad faith. --Fæ (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Oursana: What are you trying to achieve by changing sortkeys for Category:Fliesensaal, Schloss Caputh? Can it be done better with a gallery?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Just by looking at that one diff-link above and the category, I would say he is sorting these very similar looking images to their position on the walls. Makes sense to me. --Wuselig (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to all contributors. I tried to start a discussion on my talk page. But the special templated message given to an experienced user is clearly offending specially in the German version saying test and nonsense contributions. @A.Savin: How did I insult you? Using the template was offending and not propriate. With this notice I wanted to point out friendly and polite contact, and using the template surely was the opposite. Specially from admins I aspect respecting commons guidelines. The sorting depends on the subject, so different walls, close ups etc can be brought together. Yes the sorting often is the first step to create a gallery. But with a mass of photos by sorting you can find out best photos from certain points of view. Here is a nearly finished example of sorting. Unfortunately I can not revert so that you could see the difference, but with 111 files in a mass you see nothing. But for me was important how to write on one's talk page.--Oursana (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If you had written "the following" to me, I would also take it as an insult; but would probably not do anything about it because one gets accostumed to insults here. Template texts may be bettered, as Fae says, but that text is not the fault of people who choose to use them. (I do not even know where to find them templates, BTW, let alone using them.) <<Necessarily I want to ask an admin to remind him how to behave on commons and not to attack other users and that he risks to be blocked from the project next time he spreads his "charm".>> E4024 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think both users are in the wrong here. Oursana should've included an edit summary before changing the sortkey, as Pi said. Or even better, should've discussed it first with A.Savin before changing it. A.Savin, on the other hand, shouldn't have used rollback, as it is meant to be used only for vandalism and clear-cut cases, which is not the case here. The templated message used also doesn't assume good faith. A.Savin could've done better by asking politely to Oursana what they are trying to achieve with their change of the sortkey. I agree, however, that the templated message used by A.Savin is not a personal attack. A PA attacks the person behind the edits. A.Savin only criticized, though a bit too harshly, the edit made by Oursana.

    I think a trout and a mutual apology is in order here. pandakekok9 03:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

    To disqualify other contributors by naming their contributions nonsense like the German version of the template expressively says is even by using a beginners template a personal attack. I wonder what one wants to achieve using this template. Instead of arguments he said stop your nonsense and better learn how to contribute. This behavior especially by an admin is not at all tolerable in this project, even if I had done something wrong, but I have not. A. Savin was wrong using the Sandbox template on my talk page to which he still does not agree.Oursana (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, when using HotCat, adding your own edit summary isn't actually supported when changing only a single category. TommyG (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    I know. Oursana could've used the regular editing tool instead, or made a dummy edit containing an explanation either via HTML comment or edit summary after saving with HotCat. pandakekok9 07:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ein User wehrt sich dagegen, dass ein Admin ihn beleidigt. Der zieht sich darauf zurück, dass er nur ein Template verwendet habe, das er nicht gelesen hat und dann wird darüber diskutiert, was der User gefälligst machen soll, damit er nicht von Admins beleidigt wird. Heute schreiben zumindest zwei der überregionalen deutschen Tageszeitungen (durchaus positiv) über das heutige 20jährige Jubiläum von Wikipedia. Aber natürlich werden auch die Probleme erwähnt: Rückgang der Mitarbeiterzahl, 75% Akademiker, 90% Männer, Edit-Wars, die Hälfte der Bearbeitungen kommt von Bots, die schwedische Wikipedia ist zur Hälfte bot-generiert. Und der allgemeine Ton der Admins (wie hier mal wieder von A.Savin demonstriert) und das kritiklose verwenden von Templates (gerne auch Formulierungen wie Nonsens in einem Datei-Lösch-Kommentar, der dann nicht entfernt werden kann und für den sich der Admin auch auf Aufforderung nicht entschuldigt) sind zu einem guten Teil Grund für die genannten Probleme. Derweil funktioniert der Upload-Wizard praktisch garnicht und die Foundation arbeitet an Zielen für 2030 mit irgendeinem divers-inklusiven Code-of-Conduct der so garnicht zu diesen Nonsens-Templates und Admin-Verhalten passt. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The message I left on Oursana's talk page was actually following up two of their edits I had to revert. The one was addition of "15-07-05-Schloß-Caputh-RalfR-N3S 1659" as sortkey, as mentioned. The other, more severe, was a group of edits ended up in removal of license. Now please thouroughly consider who is actually "the vandal" here, take a deep breath, and... close this. --A.Savin 11:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The other one indeed was a mess, and I think you're right in using rollback for that. After all, removing the license is clearly a mistake. pandakekok9 12:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Transclusion of User:A.Savin/Photo unsubsted on 4,537 file description pages is in violation of COM:USER#Regarding licenses.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting that the guideline there states that "parsing the wikitext" should always be possible.
The exact opposite of this rationale was being used to justify empty templates that were 100% reliant on whatever is in Wikidata for displaying on the image page, and even worse to justify revert warring in order to blank valid wikitext in preference for transcluded information from elsewhere.
Not sure this project has any effective policy about wikitext at this time, in the light that there were so many administrators arguing against having anything reliable, or at all, in the wikitext. --Fæ (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The other revert I did not even notice and A. Savin's message on my talk page was not at all helpful only offending and A. Savin does not even notice he did wrong. I did not make my mistake on purpose. A. Savin did not have to revert my sort key which was using another files name to keep same files together. Perhaps at another place there should be discussed not to automatically sort via file name, which most users are not aware of. Automatically sorting after file names is nonsense especially if you have no file naming policy considering sorting. To sort files is much too complicated. But sorting just by filename is no achievement at all. As for me we can stop the discussion. Thank you for the many comments. Offending always seems the standard behaviour here for those who think themselves better than others. Oursana (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2021/Categories#Add sorting options in category pagesOursana (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2021 (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.

User:EricNeedles3

EricNeedles3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:McRonaldo9

McRonaldo9 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done blocked for a week rubin16 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:LadyGonca

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week by @EugeneZelenko rubin16 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, EugeneZelenko and rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged

This user has been engaging in an edit war on Category:Murovdag. They vandalise that page by trying to push their baseless and biased views. Today, they violated the three-revert rule just in 7 minutes by performing four reverts (1, 2, 3, 4). Administrators should intervene.--BSRF (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done I have protected the page for a week and will invite to a talk page now rubin16 (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I support their view that categories are not always about current realities.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Danyx50

Danyx50 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done User blocked for 2 weeks. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Nat. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Koguremichiyolegend

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  blocked for a week rubin16 (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Henblo keeps overwriting Escudo de El Carmen de Bolívar.svg

Henblo (talk · contribs) has been reverting File:Escudo de El Carmen de Bolívar.svg to an official but non-vector version for a year now. I included a link to Commons:OVERWRITE and attempted to explain the problem, recently in Spanish using Google Translate to no avail. The user has been partially blocked before for doing the same thing.--TFerenczy (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Half done User warned and file protected, but will not be blocked. User can be blocked if they continue to overwrite files. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Brenno da Grécia e Dinamarca (talk · contribs)

This user (Brenno da Grécia e Dinamarca (talk · contribs)) is taking images from somewhere else on internet and uploading here as "own work" (he even uploaded a picture from a member of nobility as "own work"). I tagged several of their uploads, but there's a lot more. Also, their contribuitions on pt.WP and en.Wp are, almost always, vandalism. Can someone else give a deep look. Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I will look. As I see, there were no more uploads after you warned the uploader, so, won't place a block. rubin16 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 19:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: I notified them for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G.. I completely forgot it.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 02:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ERICK GIFT

ERICK GIFT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Keeps uploading low quality selfies even after having been deleted multiple times. TommyG (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted remaining images and warned him. As no warnings were sent before, it could happen that the user didn't know such selfies aren't permitted here rubin16 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I was trying to find some appropriate warning templates, but wasn't sure where to find them. TommyG (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@TommyG: The standardized warning templates are available from the User Messages gadget.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently the warning didn't take. He's at it again. TommyG (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked now rubin16 (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Нитрам Разама

Нитрам Разама (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  all uploads are clear copyvios. --188.123.231.15 07:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion and warned the user rubin16 (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's mee 05

That's mee 05 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  Editwar/vandalism in File:Jawa Babetta Type 207.jpg. --Alpöhi (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted, warned the user, added the file to the watchlist. Will do something if it continues rubin16 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Cthoa Bincth

Special:Contributions/Cthoa Bincth Only here to abuse, it seems. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A month? You really want him back here? Ever? Without locking his talk page? Wow. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Fitindia please, have a look. I just added the block to the talk page editing and hid all abusive comments to edits but I won’t change the duration of other sysop’s block rubin16 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Indef by User:AntiCompositeNumber. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yuriy kosygin

He abused the "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952" category and refuse to remove it from File:Central District (Taichung) wikivoyage banner.jpeg. I tried to give him a chance, but all these things he says and he does, had me change my tune. Because he told me that this file was uploaded by Kai3952, he pushed the problem to the Crop Tool. See: here. I think he is just proving that he did nothing wrong. In fact, he can choose to remove that category. Then, I gave him a chance again, and wanted him to go clean up his mess. His response to me was: "你高興就好".--Kai3952 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Cropped files are derivative works. How about a deeper category called "Files cropped from uploads by Kai3952" to distinguish?--Jusjih (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that cropped files were not uploaded by me. At least two people (Yuriy kosygin, KOKUYO) told me that the problem is "me". Why does the "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952" category appear when uploading via the Crop Tool?--Kai3952 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Because the Crop Tool simply copies the entire file page of the source file, including the categories. This makes perfect sense, as most times, the same categories is relevant for the cropped image as for the original uncropped version. Is there any reason why you can't just simply remove the category, like I did on File:Central District (Taichung) wikivoyage banner.jpeg? Are there more files than this specific file which has been added to the Commons category Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952 which you feel doesn't belong there? TommyG (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@TommyG: Please take a look at 1, 2, 3. Cropped files are not uploaded by me. Irrespective of your explanation, none of these cropped files should be marked as "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952". Also, I saw you remove the category "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952" from File:Central District (Taichung) wikivoyage banner.jpeg, but this has not help solve the problem. Because too many people make the same mistake uploading via the Crop Tool. I don't think we have the interest and time to patrol them all. Again, take a look at 1, 2, 3. These files are not uploaded in the last few days, but in 2020, 2019 or 2018. If they can't find the mistake in time and correct it in time, I am afraid it will mislead others to think that I uploaded these cropped files. No one wants to turn themselves into "scapegoat"!!! Ironically, I don't have the ability to prevent others from misusing the category "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952". I don't want to report the same problem every time I come here. Is there any way to solve this problem?--Kai3952 (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I caused them trouble because of this problem. Now I am blocked from editing by Ch.Andrew on zh.wikimedia. See: the block log.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

They told me that I misunderstood them. They worry that I will hound them like before so they don't want to listen to me. See: zh:special:diff/63801072. In fact, I did not misunderstand them. I can understand why the Crop Tool automatically adds cropped files to the category "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952". So here is the problem we are looking to solve: How to prevent the Crop Tool from automatically adding Category:Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952?--Kai3952 (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Kai3952, there's no real user problem here. Since your issue is with CropTool, I would suggest going to Commons talk:CropTool and discussing the issue with them. I would also point out that, yes, in an ideal world only your specific uploads would appear in "Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952", but that isn't technically possible to achieve. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
But it will mislead others to think that I uploaded these cropped files. If I check all files in Category:Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952, it will take me a lot of time. Because I don't know when someone will crop the Flickr file I uploaded. If “that isn't technically possible to achieve” is true, then I can only choose to delete the category Flickr files uploaded by Kai3952 and request protection (to prevent being created).--Kai3952 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Kai3952, that's your prerogative if you wish (though overkill in my opinion), but it is trivial for an end-user to look at the file page itself and see who actually uploaded it. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I am busy in real life; and will take more time than usual to respond. If you don't mind, I intend to end this thread here.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Nawafkassab2000

Nawafkassab2000 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after admin's warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, thanks rubin16 (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Esteban2248

Esteban2248 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Lietuvis999

Lietuvis999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months rubin16 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Rk2515

Rk2515 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This user repeatedly re-uploaded the deleted file. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

See also COM:AN#Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  Not done. No activity since you warned him/her. All copyvios are either deleted or nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Nicojaba2781

Nicojaba2781 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

This editor has used a couple accounts (Nicojaba2780 and Nicojaba2781) to ask me incessantly to make some route marker signs for Chile. I created a couple files on December 23 and since then this user has been bothering me to make more.[52] I asked them to not be pushy or I would not make any more files.[53]. That did not happen and I told them I would not make any more files for them, but that did not stop them from asking. After receiving eight emails this morning because of talk page edits, all from this user, I asked on their talk page to stop.[54] Since then I have received two more talk page emails.

I do not necessarily care what punishment, if any, is meted out by admins. I just want this user to leave me alone. –Fredddie™ 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  Half done Sock blocked indef'ed. Master remains unblocked as it hasn't edited since 24 December 2020. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This user came back with a new sock Nicobarra1234. I put in a case at COM:SPI, but I guess they don't deal with quacking ducks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredddie (talk • contribs)

Hi, can anyone deal with this user? This is astounding. --Rschen7754 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Ryugold

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked Ryugold for a week. All his uploads are deleted by others. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Users:Smooth O---François-Ávila

François-Ávila (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  removes "no permission" and "copyvio" tags from clearly copyrighted images and images without source and permission (example). In order to avoid edit war, someone should react to this. --Smooth O (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Not correct. User has attempted to remove files that meet Wikipedia's standards, possibly in an attempt to hinder my work. Files are either copies of paintings held in a museum; covers of books a hundred years old, or files already uploaded on Wikipedia in other languages'. I agree in that someone should react to this, take a careful look at the matter, and at the user's activities.--François-Ávila (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ShkoDev

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, FitIndia. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Ricardalovesmonuments

This user Ricardalovesmonuments (talk · contribs) is uploading non-free images on Commons. Instead of caring about right licencing and getting permissions, she is insulting me. I'm reporting them, because I don't see any sense of explaining to Ricardalovesmonuments. User is old and experienced enough, to know how it works. Now I've read this message in German.

"Irgendwie scheint etwas mit dir nicht zu stimmen"
Translation: Something seems to be wrong with you
At least the user writes "Verachtungsvoll" which means translated Disregard.

Thats obviously an offens, intimidation and harassment by Ricardalovesmonuments. Pan Tau (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • You've given no examples of any such images and not linked to any places where there is a comprehensible dispute about licensing between the two of you. Instead you're just going straight for the ad hominem. Nor have you, as you are required to do, notified the other editor. As such, this should be closed as pointless.
The only real example I can see is this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte der Gemeinde- und Ortsteile der Stadt Kempten (Allgäu).jpg, where your deletion request was closed by an independent editor as having no valid reason for deletion. There's also File:Umgebungskarte Kempten 1910.jpg, which you seemingly tagged as "no licence". Such a tag should (rather obviously) only be used when there is clearly no licence - not if you dispute the details of some licence, where you should raise a deletion discussion instead, so that we can discuss the merits of such fine details. A competent admin should know this and not delete a speedy request in such circumstances. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a report about the abusive behavior of Ricardalovesmonuments, arguing about my mental health/soundness of mind. I don't take responsibilty to explain experienced users how to use licenses properly (here another example). Your response is more then pointless. Pan Tau (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

DISMEYCARTOON207

DISMEYCARTOON207 (talk · contribs)

Childish vandal. Indef block and revert / delete created pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Editost

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sheetalkumari8101995

Sheetalkumari8101995 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

See File:Karamjeet Madonna Dancing 01.jpg's File usage on other wikis. Cross wiki abuse on at-least 13 wikis. I don't know how to report this mess on those wikis. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Marcolacson

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 2 weeks Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Admiral Farmer

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Emadadden

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week. This user could use some help understanding what licenses are free Gbawden (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden Here it says "a week", but in the block log it says "1 day". Which is correct? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yuraily Lic: Finger trouble Gbawden (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Slafaihdrmyt3

Slafaihdrmyt3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

User:بتول باسم المصاروة

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Aigerim Kayupova

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked her for a month. Her last remaining uploads have all "source – from Google, author – Google", showing, that she does not understand copyright at all. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Douurunzhu

Hello, I'm not sure what the correct procedure for this report is, but I've come across uploads by Douurunzhu which are clear copyright violations and tagged them as such. (Some that were less clear-cut I nominated for deletion discussion.) I was not the first to notice these[55], but Douurunzhu removes speedy notices [56][57][58][59] and deletion notices[60] without further action. It seems sub-optimal to punt them all to deletion discussions which are half a year backlogged, since they're obvious copyright violations, so I felt coming here would be the best option. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

my apologize for these problems. I have done relicensing as hard as i could. But looks like i have not yet getting used to Wikimedia Commons Upload system. So that's why i am prone to copyvio like these. So i hope you understand, and may could guide me to correct it. The administrator can give me any sanction that available because this is truely my own fault. So i take the responsibility. Thank you very much for reminding me. Douurunzhu 09:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Images not created by the author cannot simply be relicensed, they can only be uploaded to Commons if they already have a specific licence. More information is available at Commons:Licensing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done. I warned the user. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Douurunzhu: Please review Commons:Signatures#Images in signature.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Already Changed it, Thank you. Douurunzhu 13:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Terryanna

Terryanna (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) multible copyviolations Oesterreicher12 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked her for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan

Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. This user has re-uploaded the deleted file. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done blocked for 3 days Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Delicje

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Turan Etibaroğlu

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, De728631. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikiloverdeepak

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

Copyvio after warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:JassenMarang17

JassenMarang17 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Due to big number of copyvios I blocked (s)he for a month. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Taivo: Thanks! I believe the appropriate word is "them".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Phankhachaidang

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

Copyvios after last warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP addresses

  1. 37.160.12.135   Done by Túrelio.
  2. 37.160.178.68   Not done: just 2 edits that are not disruptive.
Elizium23, be careful and reconsider your role in this editwar. --Achim (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I am investigating Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Livioandronico2013 and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Σπάρτακος. As you can see, IP-hopping abuser disrupted this noticeboard as well in order to try and harass me. Elizium23 (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User:山口ケージ

山口ケージ (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User:سامي حسام الطوخي

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Recategorising Category:France (ship, 1962)

The ship has been completed 19 november, 1961 see [61] and [62] so the right category is Category:France (ship, 1961). Recategorising cannot be done because it was recategorised before. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done, history merged. --Achim (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Review on F2C ban

May I ask for a review on Special:AbuseFilter/208. I do not misuse {{Duplicate}} (tagging deletion of the existing files but not the new one) since then, and I'm not repeating the old problems. It is not necessary to unban me at this point, but at least a time on an unban/another review should be given. It is just like an endless waiting. I hope I can get a response like Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 88#Editing restriction review. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support This is a matter of trust. A1Cafel have made some mistakes and the question is if we trust that the lesson is learned. I do not think it makes much difference if the ban is lifted now or in 3 months so personally I think that we might as well find out now if A1Cafel will follow the advices/guides or not. So I support to remove AbuseFilter and if A1Cafel makes no more mistakes then we all win and if the old problems return then it will only take 1 minute to reactivate the filter. --MGA73 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know why you felt you needed to raise this. 1) Limit of 10 images per day at DR and no nominating of images for deletion outside of DR, until 23:59, December 31, 2020 (UTC). 2) No formal restrictions afterwards, but any clearly incorrect speedy tagging (Speedydelete, Nld, Nsd, Npd, etc.) may be grounds for a block without further warning. reads as at the end of this month there are no restrictions. You may wish to refine the last part, but as that's not a "formal" process, you could also just leave it on the presumption that you are not planning to do something terrible, and explainable mistakes would never lead to a block that would stick. Of course, I may misunderstand the request, as the title does not match the "Editing restriction" discussed. --Fæ (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would only venture to raise issue on procedural grounds. I don't know that there is any basis in policy for an administrator to unilaterally impose a tailored restriction for a user without clear and particular community consensus. GMGtalk 23:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment As the blocking admin, I'm fine with whatever consensus this discussion results in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Concerns related to edit restriction on nominating deletion
Again, the only thing I would have to add is that procedurally, there does not appear to be a clear community consensus for enacting a novel sanction, which under local policy, only the community can enact. We have no ArbCom. By all accounts the community here doesn't want one, and there is no allowance for enacting novel sanctions at the discretion of individual administrators, as there is in the English Wikipedia discretionary sanctions system.
I would overturn the restriction on procedural grounds, with no prejudice toward the sanctions being reinstated if the community finds a consensus to do so. No comment as to whether the community should empower administrators to enact such novel sanction, only that the community hasn't, and administrators serve at the behest of the community. GMGtalk 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Danisclaud

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

Keeps uploading copyvio after having been warned. Gikü (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Krok6kola

Krok6kola (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Hello, I blocked the aforementioned user for two weeks for repeated COM:OVERCAT violations (e.g. 1 and 2) from editing the Category and File namespace. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous and undeserved block. Nor is disagreeing with A. Savin ever reason to block. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure about the disagreement with A.Savin (haven't looked into the issue), but the cited edits are unnecessary over categorization and therefore the account has been blocked. He has been warned regarding the issue on AN/U a while ago here by @Ymblanter: --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The two edits you cite are both justifiable and constructive edits. One might well disagree with them, one might discuss them further, but these are not (emphatically so) any sort of vandalism or justifying of a block. OVERCAT is a vague guiding principle, with a huge number of exclusions to it. It is a poor editor who applies it dogmatically and simplistically. A. Savin is also one of the most abrasive and aggressive editors on Commons. There should never be blocks issued at their behest. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know you, so why are you insulting me? COM:NPA -- never heard of? --A.Savin 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you don't know me. I certainly know you, you're at the core of nearly every dispute on Commons. If you weren't the cause, you wade in anyway. And while you're about it, don't template the regulars. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no such rule named "Don't template the regulars" on Commons. --A.Savin 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
OVERCAT is not a rigid rule either, yet you've just had an editor blocked for two weeks for a trivial disagreement over it.
We do however have a very rigid rule against edit-warring, and this certainly applies to hostile edits on another's user_talk: page.[63][64] If an editor who you don't even know complains of your aggressive behaviour towards other editors, it might not be a good idea to respond in exactly that manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This is unacceptable, but far from surprising as your usual level of attack on other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You've read this? Okay. Why then did you lie? --A.Savin 22:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Steinsplitter: How did those two edits you list as evidence of repeated COM:OVERCAT violations come to your attention? I am curious as I have worked in that area a lot over time and never even seen your name before. Have we had some interaction recently that I am unaware of? Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: @Steinsplitter: "He has been warned" refers to whom? Krok6kola? - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (as a user not as an admin: I have had some off-wiki interaction with Krok6kola that probably means I should not act as an admin in this matter.) And I think A.Savin's remarks on this very thread are more worthy of a block than anything Krok6kola has done. Not that I particularly wish to see either blocked. And I sincerely hope A.Savin does not now respond with a full-frontal attack on me, as happened to Andy above. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've really no clue if you consider this a "full-frontal attack" on you; but speaking of your claim that my remarks "are more worthy of a block than anything Krok6kola has done" (??) and "as happened to Andy above", do you really consider the above remarks by "Andy" ("[A.Savin] is a poor editor who applies it dogmatically and simplistically. A. Savin is also one of the most abrasive and aggressive editors on Commons. There should never be blocks issued at their behest [...] [He is] at the core of nearly every dispute on Commons." + the obviously false claim that it was me who blocked Krok6kola and that Krok6kola was blocked for two weeks) actually not even close to be worthy of a block? --A.Savin 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • [after edit conflict] @A.Savin: } I was not commenting on Andy's remarks, I was commenting on your tone. You are an admin. To the best of my knowledge, Andy is not and never has been. As such, you are supposed to be getting things back on track, not taking them further off the rails by taking every bit of bait anyone puts in your path. It has increasingly made me wonder whether you have the temperament for the role, and I would really like to see you give that some thought, either about the way you interact here or whether perhaps you should at least take a hiatus from being an admin here. And, yes, I guess I am making this about you on a discussion that was supposed to be about Krok6kola, for which I apologize. I promise this is the last thing I will say about your conduct on this thread. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe you didn't know this so far Jmabel, but let me kindly remind you: Admins are users as all others. Admins have the same rights (apart from a few more technical rights) and duties. Admins have to respect the same guidelines. Admins are unpaid volunteers too. Admins are humans too, means they are subject to human rights and all other laws too. Admins also may feel distress or even get ill if they are insulted or harassed, and do not have a special obligation to tolerate insults in general. Thanks. --A.Savin 18:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I removed the block for now because there is no clear consensus and the issue seems to be complicated, however the COM:OVERCAT issue remains and i encourage the user in question to follow due process when categorizing images. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think in the future, someone needs to explain the actual overcategorization violation. I see a new category created and what seems to be articles added to it which haven't been reverted. I have no opinion but it seems like the same (I'd say three?) users show up in arguments constantly so something more may need to be done. Is the problem the creation of the category or the things put into the category? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    The category thing is a issue, but if the users is moor careful in future when categorizing file, then it is fine. Regarding the drama, this likely requires some kind of mediation and seems to be complicated. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Where was I warned? This petered out with one   Support by the filer, and two   Opposes. I have received no warnings beyond the 5 vandalism warnings listed on my unblock request. (These warning were for edits that were clearly not vandalism) Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Why do you care about warnings? Do you know what the issue is and were you in the right or in the wrong? If you think you were right, then can you see what the different of opinion and can you all be adults and explain it to each other? The goal should be to figure out the best way forward, not play games about whether you have had the "right" number of prior warnings about the matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I just had an off-wiki discussion with User:Krok6kola. There really does appear to be a substantive disagreement here on how to use certain categories, and it looks to me like Krok6kola and User:A.Savin are each on a different side of the divide, and that they have gotten into (probably accidental) edit wars, sometimes "slow edit wars" as each tries to line things up the way they think it should be. I only have a few minutes right now, but when I have a little more time I'll start a discussion on the substantive matter at Commons:Village pump#Cultural heritage categories in Pakistan. I should get that started within 24 hours. I think I see now what happened, and I'd appreciate if no one jumps in here conjecturing what I'm about to say and insisting that I can't possibly be right before I've even had a chance to say it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_89&oldid=539005736"