Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 90

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Special:Contributions/THUNDER_2827

Vandalism-only account. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: No notice for the user? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I've never considered warnings to a vandal who starts with his/er first post more important than halting damage to Commons. And this is not "fixing a typo". Sorry. Rodhullandemu (talk)

User:Noomigo

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Done user blocked and uploads deleted Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

User:امیررضا خاکساری

امیررضا خاکساری (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Done user blocked and uploads deleted. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mez lt

Mez lt (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Done user blocked and uploads deleted. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Indianspy007

Indianspy007 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Done user blocked and uploads deleted. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Alhadramy Alkendy

User: Alhadramy Alkendy (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after three blocks for doing so.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Due to massive number of copyvios I blocked the user indefinitely. Files are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo descriptions

I followed an editor here from English Wikipedia, and noticed the same incoherent rants, this time expressed in photo descriptions, such as these:[1][2][3]. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I deleted an empty category and nominated one file for deletion as likely copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Piely01pi

Piely01pi (talk · contribs)

New user, adding a stream of nonsense captions (some other stuff too). Looks like a bulk rollback and block needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, looks like you got all the rollbacks while I was blocking. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 13:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked om Meta too https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Piely01pi Does this need to become global? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say so, but I'm not familiar with that side of things. They've also been indeffed on en.wiki, but are still active on bg.wiki and wikidata. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, wikidata's a problem too [4] Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

They've been blocked at Data, and thanks to Pandakekok9 who has filed for global lock. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Indefinitely blocked. Thanks for reverting edits! Taivo (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:咽頭べさ

File:Yūka Kato or Yuuka Kato.jpg is a derivative work of (c)NMB48 picture (watermarked photo). I tagged the image with dw no source template, but user removed the {{dw no source since}} template twice with the edit summaries of "Burma admin is so evil why do you want to mess with me all the time all of these pictures are my own not copyright infringement if you don't believe my words you goes and inquiries at NMB48 go go don't mess with me over and over again❌👎👎👎👎👎" and "Your evil ways against me?". The user also accused Burmese people are not good and dangerous at File talk:Mon National Day.ogg. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 16:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked the user for a week due to intimidation/harassment. Taivo (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Szlapka222

Szlapka222 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after admin's warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Done indef blocked. JGHowes ^talk 19:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, JGHowes. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:حسين عراقي090

حسين عراقي090 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked the user for a week and deleted his/her last remaining contributions as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ichika Kasuga

Ichika Kasuga (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user re-uploaded a file that was deleted for copyvio. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Can you tell what I have done? I upload from the official website and have given you all the details for the second time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichika Kasuga (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This user has repeatedly blanked out the user's talk page.
Note: User:Ichika Kasuga vandalized this chapter and changed it to my user name.

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Blocked for a month. Without vandalism in AN I would block only for a week. Taivo (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

IP removing category links for no reason

123.208.156.201 is removing a lot of categories, and one of them being SVG road sign categories. I asked them why they are removing it, but they don't respond on the talk page and keep reverting me. Maybe a 12-hour block would get their attention. Thanks, panda kekok 9 09:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 12:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma repeatedly creating useless DRs and making false accusations

Gun Powder Ma (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This is the first complaint against this user because this user's behaviour only brings damage to Commons and s/he refuses to change despite communication and multiple warnings.

This latest edit special:diff/530464710 is false accusation. At the very least, the first file File:Tang shieldbearer mural.jpg in the DR has been dealt with since s/he blindly made this unhelpful mass DR. There are also multiple files that could be so easily handled, because any layman can see that their filenames contain a year which indicates that they have been produced a long time ago, e.g. File:Flintlock 1635.jpg File:Mianzhoutu - Li Gonglin (李公麟, 1049–1106) 04.jpg File:Mianzhoutu - Li Gonglin (李公麟, 1049–1106) 02.jpg File:Mianzhoutu - Li Gonglin (李公麟, 1049–1106) 03.jpg File:Mianzhoutu - Li Gonglin (李公麟, 1049–1106) 01.jpg. S/he makes no effort in correcting the file descriptions and presses for unreasonable deletion.

This user repeatedly makes claims of copyright violation without any evidence. On the contrary, there is strong evidence indicating the files are PD. It's been explained to him/her, but to no avail, that his/her action is not productive at all.--Roy17 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem with User:Steinsplitter

NO ACTION:

There is nothing that admins can do if someone prefers to remove postings from their talk page. Removing postings from talkpage is not actionable. Discussions about editcount should take place at the appropriate forum such as Commons:Village pump. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:42, 6 February 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.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. This includes a common way of communicating. To simply revert a justified criticism is not a permissible way of dealing with people. (permanent link)
Administrators should be a role model. This also applies to dealing with criticism. But that is still no reason to treat someone like a vandal and to revert its edit. --Charly Whisky (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Popping up on my talkpage in order to call my voting in a election here on commons "abartig", without saying hello or so isn't a nice way to communicate with other users. IMHO it was kind of rude and i see no need to reply. This complain here (which was initially placed on BN) is speaking for itself. Regards -Steinsplitter (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

(Du hast immer noch nicht verstanden, dass miteinander reden besser ist, als das übereinander Reden. Hier geht es darum, dass du mich unberechtigterweise wie einen Vandalen behandelt hast. Das empfinde ich als Beleidigung.) --Charly Whisky (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a "problem with Steinsplitter" because of this edit? That's surely not a problem -- on Commons there is no limitation for what you delete or keep on your own talk page; and deleting unfriendly comments is perfectly okay. --A.Savin 20:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

o.k. But then please explain to me what was unfriendly about my edit. (On my disc I translated this edit). --Charly Whisky (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Charly Whisky, the "trigger" of your posting was Steinsplitter's vote in Commons:Oversighters/Requests/JGHowes from January 8th. Basing a vote for higher functions on the edit-count may surely be debated, which has actually happened a bit in said RfO. Nevertheless, it was and is legitimate. Said RfO was closed on January 19th. Now, more than 2 weeks later you take up this topic again and make your posting to Steinsplitter's talkpage. Considering the work-throughput of many admins (unpaid) of Commons, I can fully understand that this annoyed him, especially as there was nothing more to discuss. Sure, he might have closed the thread with the comment "not interested in further discussion" or alike, instead of just removing it. But, what needs also be taken into account is the tone of your post: "Ich finde es deshalb recht abartig". Honestly, I too would have closed such a posting. --Túrelio (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your unexcited explanation.

Intentionally, I made this post two weeks later, so that I would not be suspected of condemning him because of a vote. (I don't care about the result of the vote.) I really wanted to have a discussion about the sense of editcounts. There may be technically better solutions. I chose the User:Steinsplitter for it because I assumed that he might have a contrary opinion for it. But I could not assume that he would treat me like a vandal. --Charly Whisky (talk) 08:08, 6 February 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:عرفان الغاري

عرفان الغاري (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:YokJirapornSingharach

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. 3 days. --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Túrelio. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Jerry Pischer PI

Jerry Pischer PI (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Almost all copyvios. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked him for a week. All uploads are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo and Jeff G.. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo and Yuraily Lic: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:阿部玲音

阿部玲音 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked him for a week. Taivo (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Pedro Oliveira 999

Pedro Oliveira 999 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. --- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 19:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Fitindia. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Stan_old again

Hi, Could someone indef Stan_old as they've been repeatedly warned not to upload pornographic images of their wife and they've also been repeatedly blocked for it too,
They were last blocked in 2019 (User_talk:Stan_old#Your_account_has_been_blocked_2)

They've been warned here and here as well as elsewhere on the project however unfortunately each block has resulted in them stopping for a while and then re-continuing later.

Could I also ask that the users Flickr account is also added to the Flickr spamlist here please, Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Support - Enough is enough. E4024 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 01:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks A.Savin your help is very much appreciated, and thanks E4024 for your !vote, I hope you both stay safe, take care, warm regards, –Davey2010^Talk 12:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Slghirlanda

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done The last warning was 6 years ago. I don't think a block is necessary (for now). Please report again if the user continues to upload copyvios. Jianhui67^T★C 07:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you, Jianhui67. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Yanto Anugrah

Yanto Anugrah (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done User blocked and uploads deleted. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Darlapayne3132003

Darlapayne3132003 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done 1 month. Jianhui67^T★C 23:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jianhui67. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Blankin-Antin

Resolved

Blankin-Antin (talk • contribs • block log • filter log)

Troll; possibly related to this kerfuffle. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, already done by Natuur12 on 2021-02-07T19:18:36. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly to related to Antin-Blankin (talk • contribs • block log • filter log), ~~also b~~locked. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ref.: m:Special:CentralAuth/Antin-Blankin. 19:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvalkin (talk • contribs)

User:SIMM376

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

Copyvios after warnings. This user has been blocked twice before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Blocked indefinitely. Jianhui67^T★C 00:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jianhui67. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Gökhanseverfb

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

Copyvio after warnings. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done previously indef blocked as User:Gökhamsever --Didym (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Didym. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:QtrqtrQtr

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked the user for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Prokhmer

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

Copyvios after admin's warning and last warning (Please see the history of this user's talk page). Re-uploading deleted files as copyvio. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Done User blocked and uploads deleted. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:26, 8 February 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) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Done User blocked and uploads deleted. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Akvwha143

Akvwha143 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Only engaged in uploading images that involve copyright violations. Has been warned repeatedly and was blocked previously for this behavior. But has again resumed same old activity. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The user is still uploading copyright logo and replacing them in en-wiki via IP editing as the account has been blocked there for sock-puppetry. See w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akashvermadzzz/Archive for reference. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Blocked indefinitely. Jianhui67^T★C 12:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

See also m:srg#Global lock for Akashvermadzzz. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Kmkoji

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. --- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 06:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Fitindia. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mehrah

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

Copyvio after warnings. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:LostInSpaceAndTime22

LostInSpaceAndTime22 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Sock of the globally blocked account SleepyHollowGuy1999. Has already been blocked on two other Wikis for vandalism. Has uploaded one image, which has been tagged as G3. Johnj1995 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Boxingfan1995

Boxingfan1995 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

I'm not that familiar to commons but gathered this was the place for this. The user has continued to upload copyvios after their final warning. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. No edits since October, block is not practical. I nominated some copyvios for deletion. Taivo (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikico123

Resolved

Wikico123 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Darwin. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Massimo marino

Massimo marino (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done No uploads after last warning. Jianhui67^T★C 23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnson.Xia

Johnson.Xia (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Somehow I have a feeling, that Xia understood the problem. I assume good faith and do not block Xia now. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yuraily Lic: You told me 14:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC) in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 88#User:ゆかち that you understood the need to notify a user on their user talk page when you report them here. Yet, you are still neglecting to do so. Why? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not neglect to do so. But, sometimes I forget to do it. If you see the above cases of User:Kmkoji and User:山口ケージ, you'll understand that I notified them. Thanks for the advice, Jeff G.. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

NO BLOCK:

Block must be preventive, not punitive. In my opinion DestinationFearFan got the problem, so at moment block is not needed. But next uploaded copyvio will change the situation. Taivo (talk) 16:00, 14 February 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:DestinationFearFan

DestinationFearFan has uploaded a number of images of a real estate project in Texas called The Independent. If you look closely at the top of File:The Independent 001.jpg, it becomes obvious that this is a photo of a computer screen. Similar artifacts appear in the other images in the series. Another upload by the same user (File:GreenWheel EV's Production Plant in EV Valley.jpg) also appears to be a photo of a computer screen. Although the user claims it is their own work, the original comes from here. File:Original Tokyo Toy Show Logo.jpg is also a photo of a screen and clearly not the users own work as claimed. The series of images of Beipanjiang Bridge are similarly suspect. I think the sensible course of action would be to delete all images uploaded by this user. They have a history of uploading copyright violations. I don't know why they have not been indef blocked before now. Mo Billings (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: I notified him of this section for you. Please do that yourself next time. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings Ok, SOME of the pictures I have put are of a screen. The reason I did this is because I saw this happening on other users pages's, so I assumed that it was alright to do (clearly it wasn't, as of this message). However, most of mine have been taken by me and not of a screen. Please do not block me. I really want to help Wikimedia/Wikipedia with good photos, and I won't upload any more images of screens. Again, please give me 1 more chance, but please don't delete ALL of my uploads. I will provide a list below of the pictures that are from a screen.

The rest of the images I uploaded I ACTUALLY TOOK IN PERSON. Again, please do not ban me, but you can delete those files. DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to me. If it was, you'd have been indef blocked already. Your talk page is full of warnings about copyright violations, including a final warning which you seem to have ignored. You have claimed copyrighted images as your own work when you knew they were not. Why would anyone believe your claims now? Mo Billings (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The warnings on my talk page was for 2 files.DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Mo Billings (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I deleted the mentioned files. DestinationFearFan, please consider this a warning. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me 1 more chance. I won't upload any more pictures of screens, only my work. DestinationFearFan (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@DestinationFearFan: Can you take another look through your uploads and make sure that you have identified all of the images which are not your own work? Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will take a look. DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is the last of them:

DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@DestinationFearFan: "Pretty sure" is not good enough when dealing with copyright violations. Please make absolutely sure. Mo Billings (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The last ones are File:Levdeo i5.jpg, File:Aoxin AEV1.jpg, File:Aoxin A1XD.webp, and File:Levdeo i3.jpg. The rest I took. DestinationFearFan (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@DestinationFearFan: It is extremely important that you only upload images you have taken yourself, or in some circumstances, images that you can verify are already freely licensed. If you need any assistance with this, feel free to stop by my talk page or at the Village Pump. GMG ^talk 17:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I now understand the importance of copyrights and copyright violations. Thank you for the help offer. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@DestinationFearFan: You lied when you uploaded images here and claimed them as your own work. You lied in this discussion when you claimed you were only warned about two files. And when I gave you a chance to come clean, you lied again by claiming that all of your remaining files are your own uploads. File:Aoxin AEV1.jpg is not your work. File:Levdeo i3.jpg is not your work. All of your uploads should be deleted since your claims of authorship are simply not trustworthy. Taivo You gave the user another chance. Is it time to block them yet? Mo Billings (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about uploading those images. And how is that lying??? I never said I took them. And I'm pretty sure the two Aoxin and Levdeo images were already deleted.DestinationFearFan (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You literally said "the rest I took". Mo Billings (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Because I listed the ones that are images of a screen. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Mo, I'm just wondering. You seem to really want me blocked. Have I done something to you? Or do you have anything against me? DestinationFearFan (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. Any user who continues to upload copyright violations will get blocked. Mo Billings (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. But please don't follow me around on Wikipedia like you did with my Sandbox. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am also pretty sure that this discussion is over, because I have already read the verdict up above. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo, GreenMeansGo, and Elcobbola: Do any of you care to deal with this situation? Mo Billings (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I'll delete the last mentioned files. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thank you, but I was talking about the user, not the files. After several warnings for uploaded copyright violations, including a final warning from Elcobbola), the user continued to upload copyright violations. When discussed here, they identified some of those copyright violations. When asked twice to ensure that there were no others, they again gave a false accounting of which images were their own work. Twice. When I gave two more examples, they said they "forgot" about those ones. Why should anyone have any confidence that the user's remaining uploads are their own work? Mo Billings (talk) 15:45, 14 February 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:Avilaroman

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

Copyvio after warnings. This user has been blocked twice before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Only one copyvio, so I do not block Avilaroman indefinitely, but only for 6 months. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:إسماعيل الحلونجي

إسماعيل الحلونجي (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Due to big number of copyvios and 0% of correct uploads I blocked the user for a year. Taivo (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Medo292009

Medo292009 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warnings. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Cassius of WWCC

User: Cassius of WWCC (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after final warning for doing so. All uploads have been copyvios.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done GMG ^talk 15:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@GMG: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Alorwa

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

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Yusuf Sa'adu

Yusuf Sa'adu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Jianhui67^T★C 23:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jianhui67. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Brenno da Grécia e Dinamarca

Brenno da Grécia e Dinamarca (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Rubin16 as previous decliner. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 01:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

blocked rubin16 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

User:EricNeedles3

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

Copyvios after last warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

User:1989

An appropriate edit summary? [5] --A.Savin 16:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you judge this one too? 1989 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate. Can't we all just get along? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Whataboutism is always an extremely weak argument for discussion, 1989. But if you really feel the need to compare the current issue to the situation some months ago, you would (if your motivation would be fair and constructive) at least agree that I never edit-warred on your own talk page to push a comment there against your will. --A.Savin 16:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If someone on this project writes "Leave me alone", leave them alone. If you ignore that, it's bullying and a blanking with an edit comment of "fuck off" can be taken as a healthy one from someone who feels targeted or hounded. If you disagree, do as suggested and go to WMF T&S, they'll tell you that they are happy to consider a global ban of any account with a history of bullying, with no special treatment of those with functionary roles. It may even help them out by providing case studies for the forthcoming actioning of the UCoC. And no, we do not "all just get along", if someone asks you to leave them alone, they are not the aggressor, and you should not have to be asked again, or again, or again.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again. Is "Fuck off" an appropriate edit summary? I didn't insult 1989 on their talkpage, nor did I edit-war, nor hound them. I'm perfectly fine with leaving them alone. I simply don't need them. Since their desysop, I had no interaction for several months. They are seeking conflict with me, not the other way around. 1989 in fact doesn't care about Krok6kola. They are no friends or something, not a single one time 1989 wrote anything on K.'s talk page. The only reason why 1989 is always advocating K., no matter what problem with their edits is there, is seeking conflict with me. They obviously think that K. would be kind of a "red cloth" for me (which is bullshit of course). Is this all really normal? --A.Savin 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of desysop, given this persons performance against me and other users, I would gladly support a desysop, probably a ban too. The fact that my vote actually affected them so much they started hounding me by sarcastically welcomed me back and trolling me plus added this on their userpage is very unbecoming of an administrator. 1989 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It's impressive how consistently you are ignoring any constructive argument just a small bit beyond of black and white. Maybe you should apply as judge in the Navalny's trial; they will be happy about such a perfect candidate for that. --A.Savin 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, "fuck off" is perfectly acceptable as an edit comment to someone who refuses to leave you alone after you have asked extremely clearly and unambiguously "leave me alone".

You are using this noticeboard to deliberately provoke and harass another user. There is no sysop action being requested here, this is now hounding. Please consider this thread closed. --Fæ (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"fuck off" is perfectly acceptable? Well, OK. --A.Savin 18:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The self-victimhood by comparing your chosen "enemy" as an ally of Putin is disgusting. You are harassing 1989. This is not acceptable from anyone, especially someone trusted with sysop rights. Please consider resigning the tools and the wisdom of not making any further replies to this thread, but taking the time to review your actions. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's more acceptable than bothering someone and immediately coming here over a single edit summary. meta:Don't be a jerk so can someone close this to stop this round and round fight? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban between A.Savin and 1989

As an uninvolved editor, I would like to propose an indefinite interaction ban between User:A.Savin and User:1989. I don't think blocking them would solve the issue, but an interaction ban most probably does so. If they can't leave each other alone voluntarily, the community should make them keep their distances from each other.

Here is a timeline of the recent interactions:

A.Savin needlessly and sarcastically says welcome back to 1989: "Welcome back, and I'm glad for you to get your usual honeypot again."
1989 says that A.Savin has a "bitter soul"[6] and asks them to leave them alone.
Despite the implications that they should leave each other alone, 1989 replies to A.Savin's comment and makes a reference to them using "Savin", not A.Savin who are different users [7]
A.Savin starts a new thread at 1989's talk page and calls their behaviour aggressive and harassment and informs that the other party may be reported to the WMF T&S [8]
1989 removes the thread with a "f* off" edit summary[9]
A.Savin shows that they think that anybody commenting about Krok6kola is in fact "seeking conflict with" them. They also use the word bulsh*. [10]

It should also be noted that about 5-6 months ago, 1989 blocked A.Savin which was lifted later and that event led in 1989's de-sysop vote.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

edit each other's user and user talk pages;
reply to each other in discussions;
make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Commons, directly or indirectly;
undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

However, they are allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Support As the proposer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

@4nn1l2: How exactly would this fix this persons conduct as an administrator? 1989 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a meaningful warning that such attitude won't be tolerated anymore from neither of you. If they continue to treat users like this as an admin, a de-sysope vote is not unthinkable. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting how you say that, when their terrible conduct has been going on for years. 1989 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
My conduct for years on Commons, 1989, is that I have uploaded 11,000 images, created thousands of categories, and closed thousands of RfD's. And nearly none of that actions ever were contested. Really not sure what is so terrible about that, 1989... --A.Savin 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This, right above me, is exactly why nothing has ever been done about their conduct, that and their admin privilege. When will this stop? 1989 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Noting that forcing an interaction ban means the community lacks necessary trust in the party that is a sysop. Just collapsed interactions above, which re-enforces the rationale that this interaction ban is justified. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment @4nn1l2: Thanks for taking the time. But let me say that I really didn't ever have that much to do with 1989, apart from the story with their block of mine and following desysop. This was five or four months ago or so, and since than I didn't have any interaction for a long time. 1989 just doesn't interest me. By now I was tending to think that an IB is necessary for a very much more intensive interaction. I'm not even sure we already had examples here. In any event, an IB between me and Krok6kola probably would be much more logical, even though I'm still convinced that in most of our interactions I was fixed edits by Krok6kola in accordance with the guidelines such as COM:Categories. --A.Savin 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As an observer, I think the interaction between you and 1989 is unhealthy enough (saying f word, sh*, making personal attacks [bitter soul], accusing the other party of harassment, taunting, resorting to the intervention of WMF T&S, etc) and there is no indication that this won't get worse. Maybe this IB makes you (and even Krok6kola) think about your interactions from now on. I know that you and Krok6kola have dispute over content, but at least that dispute has not fallen down to the level of incivility, personal attacks, and harassment claims, as far as I know. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
OK thanks --A.Savin 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: an IB between me (Krok6kola) and A.Savin is a great idea. Support an IB between Krok6kola and A.Savin. Krok6kola (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Proposing a two-way interaction ban is ridiculous. You do realize this whole thing started was because the other person couldn't resist talking shit when I said nothing to them. I'd support a one-way interaction ban, but not this. No way. 1989 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that they started the current incident does not excuse you for making personal attacks [bitter soul] and telling f words to other users. The fact that you are referring to the other party's writings as "talking sh*" is another indication that a 2-way interaction ban is needed. It is really not prudent to continue using vulgar words in this thread. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. When a bully starts hounding you for no reason whatsoever, just ignore them otherwise I'll be in trouble too, right? That's how this is gonna go? 1989 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Tired to say over and over again that this is highly unjust and unfair, but at least try to think a tiny little bit rationally, 1989. What on Earth might be a reason for myself to start "hounding you for no reason whatsoever"? And this, after you have lost your admin bit anyway and I didn't have any interaction with you for the following months. By the way. Your apology is worth exactly nothing, I guess? --A.Savin 22:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Such a tone-deaf reply and yet I'm going to be punished with them... Are you serious? 1989 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, you might have missed that I would agree on a voluntarily two-way IB (see straight below). So, it's your turn now to agree; no idea who is actually punished here (blocks, by the way, are not punitive too). --A.Savin 22:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear. From my understanding, a voluntary IB is a true IB, which has all the terms of IB and their breach is subject to a block. The difference is, it's an agreement, because both sides have to agree that any further interaction is counter-productive for the time being. --A.Savin 22:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No, 1989. From my perspective you are not innocent here. After you tell them to stay away from you, it is you who approaches them[11]. It is you who uses f word and sh* against them. Your attitude is as hostile as theirs. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment Would agree on a voluntarily two-way IB. --A.Savin 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Support Two-way interaction ban, the bad blood between A.Savin and 1989 has gone on long enough and the sniping each other has gotten to the point that the community has to act in an attempt to remove the interaction that is clearly not healthy. Bidgee (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Support. The goal is to reduce friction here and if two people get on each other's nerves, they need to figure out something else to do with the millions of things that can be done here. You can't tell me it's impossible to not annoy each other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose from the little I saw I think A. Savin is being intentionally antagonistic towards 1989 and the sarcastic, veiled threats are inappropriate. In can imagine that 1989 feels hounded by A. Savin and I don't blame him for telling him to F off. Being hounded and bullied is no fun Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden: What is the alternative or your suggestion/solution? 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Ibans are too flawed to ever be much use. They have two typical failings, and I think both would be a risk here. Firstly they are a symmetrical response to an asymmetric problem. We have two Ibans under discussion here already, and what's the common factor? I don't see any calls for Ibans between Krok6kola and 1989 - why should they be tarred with such a punitive measure? Secondly, the effectiveness of an Iban relies on its observation by those named, and by their willingness to breach it and their influence in order to do so without further redress. A. Savin is an admin and so has considerable power and status over mere editors. They can ~~flaunt~~flout an Iban (I have no faith that they won't) and if 1989 were to even complain of that, 1989 would then be at risk of blocks etc. for having breached that Iban. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I can't understand your second point. How can one flaunt being ibanned? Being banned is negative in nature. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the word should be "flout"? Sorry to be a pedant, but I have told solicitors off in court for that error. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  - Sorry, that's my typo - exactly as Rod pointed out. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No !vote from me. Just a note: this appears to largely be a "two-way street" and neither party wants an iban. Furthermore, ibans between prolific contributors can sometimes be more disruptive than not so are best avoided unless in exceptional circumstances. At this stage, making a case for harassment/hounding in either direction would need to include copious diffs IMO. Failing that, as the problematic interactions seem confined to user talk pages, perhaps the best way to minimize disruption is to just quickly close threads like this one before they take up a lot of people's time. A prayer for whomever dared to make such a closure, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Support An interaction ban between A.Savin and 1989 is more than heavy enough, but an interaction ban + de-sysop is shooting with a canon to a mosquito. (PS, "shooting with a canon to a mosquito" is a translation of this Dutch expression: Met een kanon op een mug schieten, and it means you're coming with something bigger while it's totally unnecessary.) Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^{Overleg • CA} 14:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal between Krok6kola and A.Savin

@4nn1l2: an IB between me (Krok6kola) and A.Savin is a great idea.

This would prevent the harassing vandalism templates and threats to block me from him (5 in the last six months - see my unblock request at the bottom of my talk page for list of vandalism and threats to block templates from A.Savin), and other bad interactions:

e.g.deleting my categories as I'm creating them

Leading to attempts to block me as just happened above on this page where I was unjustly blocked without ever received any warnings and then unblocked so now I have a block record

and another examplepreviously with help from Jeff G that was used to justify the block mentioned above

A.Savin never posts constructively on my talk page anyway, and he never answers questions by me on his e.g[12], so there would be no loss from an IB there.

A.Savin is the only support for blocking me. He has been found to be too "involved" to do so himself.

Support an IB between Krok6kola and A.Savin (from the editor formerly known as Kalbbes) Krok6kola (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: Don't you mean User:Kalbbes? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Opps! Fixed. Thank you. Krok6kola (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment If both of you agree with an IBAN, just avoid each other voluntarily. It is not necessary to make it official. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Will you support this? It would relieve us both and allow peace between us. Each could lose the anger over the other. Krok6kola (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If someone goes ahead and promises to be monitoring your categorization edits on daily basis and fix all the mess you are producing (over-cat, creating duplicated categories, blanking of pages etc. pp.), then yes indeed, I will agree. But by now I'm the only one who cares whatsoever. --A.Savin 05:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
My advice is to retract that. We don't need proxy battles here. I'd suggest you move on. What we do need is people to follow the process of either listing the problematic categories for deletion or use the talk pages to discuss the categorization rather than a general "you are bad at categorizing" vagueness. At the end of the day, if you really can't just let someone else do whatever categories they want, I think you need to take a break from here. And if you are the sole person who cares, is it possible that the categorization isn't as wrong as you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A.Savin (desysop prior discussion)

"can we hope one entire year without a dispute that include a threat of block from A.Savin within a conflict in which he is widely involved"?, the answer have been no of course. Furthermore although he did not block the user himself, I would not be surprised if he asked by email to one or more other administrators to do so.

Quesion: when the community will decide to desysop A.Savin? How many disputes will we have to undergo? when this paragraph will be closed, how long will we have to wait before a new conflict arises? 1 month, 2 months, 3 months 6 months? with another experiment user? or with another administrator? his confrontational behavior combined with responsibilities do not go together, whether for his own good or the good of the community. I have said it before and repeated several times. His confrontational behavior is not worthy of the status of administrator and although he has not abused of the tools he should not be administrator. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this a proposal following Commons:Administrators/De-adminship? No opinion on it but it's not like this is completely new. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And it looks like A.Savin follows Krok6kola in order to find his mistakes, I find it a quite disturbing. In particular as the bad faith of Krok6kola is far from to be obvious. I also wonder how @Steinsplitter: has been notified about the edits he quotes for the block rationale here and here, as those links are indeed overcat but it is not blatant at first view, because the overcat is not direct, and even Krok6kola who made the edits can have missed that it was indeed overcat and can have acted in good faith. So I really wonder by what miracle Steinsplitter managed to saw those edits, and to see the overcategorisation. Only someone who search that in particular, who tracks down the slightest fault of Krok6kola in search of a pretext for a conflict (at best) or for a block (at worse), or who is particulary interested in the topic "Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh" can have noticed those edits. And again for the 50th time, this behavior is not worthy of an administrator, to check public contributions is of course allowed, but to track someone on order to win (or maintain) a conflict is not less than hounding and a kind of harassement, and this battleground mentality is not worth of an administrator (and even quite questionable for a non-administrator). Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that Steinsplitter has likely saw an edit war because of the rollback tag, this is not what I usually watch, this is why I did not think of this possibility when I asked how Steinsplitter managed to saw. This in no way excuses the pursuit made by A.Savin which lasts for several months, and who is again responsible for climbing. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussions from keyword search, may not be complete

2021 Performed a protection for a category while in dispute with Krok6kola and the reason for it is: "Excessive vandalism"
2021 A.Savin continue to use warning template against experimented users despite that everyone said not to do it, hence the creation of another conflict
2021 A.Savin, after sued the same user for several months, intends to continue to pursue that user.
2021 Despite that almost every one said that "warnings about vandalism" as well as "Templating experienced users with vandalism-notices" were not appropriate, A.Savin did the same thing to the same user (not the same user name, but well the same user) 6 months later, continued to to sue the user and escalate an editing war, leading to the block of the user. While the overcategorisation is not so obvious because it is not direct.
2021 "when will you finally stop this embarassing bullshit that I would not allow to touch my files in general"
2020 When the community will decide to desysop Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 86#A.Savin
2020 "consider this a warning" told to an experienced user and climbing up to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 77#Correct use of categories - and an admin's behaviour
2018 A.Savin thinks that challenge ourselves our Adminitrative status by submitting that status to a community vote more than one time is a waste of time. That's very reflective on how A.Savin cares about community opinion, on his potential ability to question his behavior, or on even just his intention to challenge himself.
2017 Prior discussion for De-adminship Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 65#A.Savin
2017 [...] calls other users vandal, corrupt, crook and thief Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 64#A.Savin
Note that A.Savin didn't call Tm corrupt. Here was the exact quote of A.Savin closing the unblock discussion:
```
OK, I got it. Usual corruption here instead of encouraging of quality work and discouraging of spam and editcount pushing. Unblocking & unwatching. --A.Savin 22:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
```
The "crook and thief" accusation is also misleading, as A.Savin used the term party of crooks and thieves, which is a Russian expression. panda kekok 9 01:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
2016 (Tangential discussion including interaction between A.Savin and 1989 removed from view, see thread source, or page history --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)) → reinstalled by me Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Was blocked previously for harassment

This block was an error, it was lifted well before expiration, and later also hidden from my block log. Also, the comment by me that was reason for the block, was perfectly justified, and INeverCry later was banned by the WMF. So this link is a blatant violation of COM:Privacy policy ~~by Christian Ferrer~~, as well as a violation of INC's ban. This will of course be recorded by me. --A.Savin 15:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You are wrong on all here, 1/ I did not put that link 2/ this is a public log where it is talk publicly by you about your block 3/ this is not a violation of any ban. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops my bad, please excuse. It was 1989 who put the link. Here is the diff. --A.Savin 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This block was most certainly not an "error" this person is claiming. 1989 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Impressive how you eventually even refused to discuss with me straight, 1989. "This person"... Maybe a little bit more creative label would be "Berlin patient"? No, not this one, but this one. --A.Savin 16:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, did you actually know that a hidden log entry is non-public information anyway, even if it was hidden as a courtesy? --A.Savin 16:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I was there and I felt exactly the same as Revent at the time of the block, I even found him brave, and I was even grateful. The potential behavior of INC is in no way a justification or an excuse for the behavior of A.Savin. Revent was very very kind by agreeing that the block be removed from the log. I see it more as a greatness of the soul of someone who seeks to lower the pressure, rather than someone who recognizes an error. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
2016 threat of legal action, which is clearly prohibited by Wikmedia TOU
2015 denigration of an administrator, accusation against 2 users
2012 Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 38#Questionable RFA vote by User:A.Savin

--Fæ (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Support 1989 (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Support desysop Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment I have no idea what is being proposed here, as it just seems to be random dirt digging. The Usual Suspects turn up here to yet again grumble that an admin they don't like is still an admin. Doing that reflects badly: we have enough grudge bearing in the last 24 hours without you adding to it, and you guys deserve a trout. I see two users (1989 and A.Savin) both lost their cool over the block (by another admin) of someone for overcat. I'm generally opposed to interaction bans. I would favour at this point both users are admonished for personal attacks and grudge bearing, and strongly encouraged to avoid each other in future: let other people deal with such matters. The Krok6kola interaction ban self-proposal is a transparent attempt to seek to censor a critic. They do appear to have categorisation issues that need dealt with in some way. Suggest all these sections be closed and folk move on. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- The title of this section has changed since I wrote the above. Oppose de-sysop. Obviously people should not have cross words with each other, but this is petty at the level of noise. The de-sysop process being abused, and I ask those nominating and supporting this, yet again, to realise they bring shame upon themselves at this continued grudge bearing. Do you realise that if your level of de-sysop amounts to little more than "he said a bad word", you will find yourself in trouble if an admin pal of yours ever says a bad word and you bleat "no misuse of tools" in response. Games. Games. Grow up. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't been involved in the politics of Wikimedia Commons and as such don't belong to any particular side here, I would tend to disagree on this. I find this statement by A.Savin above rather disconcerting:

If someone goes ahead and promises to be monitoring your categorization edits on daily basis and fix all the mess you are producing (over-cat, creating duplicated categories, blanking of pages etc. pp.), then yes indeed, I will agree. But by now I'm the only one who cares whatsoever. --A.Savin 05:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

as this is to me A.Savin admitting that he is persistently pursuing and seeking out this editor. As an administrator, A.Savin is entrusted with enforcing the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons which has been agreed on through community concensus. The administrator position does not give him any rights above any other editor to dictate or define how other editors should contribute to Wikimedia Commons as long as they stay within the community guidelines. If he finds himself in a prolonged disagreement with another editor on this project on how to interpret these guidelines it's very obvious he should not keep keep pursuing this editor but rather disengange himself from this editor and ask other administrators to step in for a second opinion and to follow up the situation. Instead here, A.Savin has kept on hounding Krok6kola over, from what we can judge by the warnings on Krok6kola talk page, is a periode of over a year. This is obviously not acceptable. Now, when we in addition hear that this is not the first time that A.Savin has been in trouble due to this kind of behaviour, and that he has in fact previously been blocked for similarly pursuing specific editors, I think there's every reason to be concerned about A.Savins ability to perform his duties as an unbiased and fair administrator. TommyG (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, whereas not the best behavior, it it nowhere near the desysop level.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose What I'm doing here on Commons, I do to the best of my knowledge and belief; I'm a human and may occasionally make mistakes, but you always can friendly advice me about that; in general I'm friendly to people who are friendly to me, and in most cases even to those who are not. And I certainly didn't abuse any sysop's tools. --A.Savin 12:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm friendly to people who are friendly to me, That's some of the problem: you use it as, "be nice and agree with me, or else I'll turn against you, and I have the power to block you". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm friendly to people who are friendly to me, and in most cases even to those who are not. user:A.Savin, do you consider friendly to falsely accuse other of being sockpuppets? Or is any possible explanation to the phrase that you said that "you Tuvalkin that you use sockpuppets to "vote" in deletion requests"? An clear answer would help understand by what you meant with "Tuvalkin that you use sockpuppets to "vote"". Tm (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Comment A.Savin, I too do the best that I can and am a human being and make mistakes. I also am open to all friendly advice on what I am doing wrong and how I can improve. I try to be friendly always to others. And was so to you at first, A.Savin, but my attempts seemed to have had the opposite effect.
Unfortunately I lack the technical knowledge most others here seem to have, but I have cultural knowledge so I am creative in the creation of categories. In other parts of the world where I do most of my editing, I have no problems. But I would welcome a mentor or someone who would be willing to help me understand the mistakes I do make in a way I can understand. "Rollback" tags do not explain. When I do make mistakes, I become aware when editors come to my page and explain. I always apologize and try to comply with their wishes. Reading COM:OVERCAT is not helpful to me, and there does not seem to be a consensus on the Category talk page about what it constitutes. So I would appreciate any help in correcting my faults. My motives are only to improve categorization on the Commons, not to cause problems or harm. I want to make peace with you, A.Savin and I appreciate your beautiful photographs. Krok6kola (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
As already stated above, I'm happy to stop any interaction. When reverting your edits, I did nearly everything to the best of my knowledge and belief and in accordance with COM:Categories. I did not stalk you, as you claimed several times (last time as recently as tonight). The only problems are/were your edits, not your person. Please do not confuse cause with effect.

It would be better though, someone familiar with Pakistan would take an other look. I'm not aware about any active Pakistani users here, but maybe their "neighbours" from Iran, India or Bangladesh might wish to help a bit. By now I seem to be the only one who cares. Did you ever visit Pakistan? I did. That's why parts of that categories matter to me. But I'm also aware that there is no mentoring on Commons, unlike on wikipedia. So I would give up and move on. --A.Savin 15:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Support There is sufficient evidence of macho harassing behaviour over a period of years to start a desysop discussion. All Wikimedia projects must take harassment seriously, including holding project administrators to account based on evidence, not just majority popularity or unpopularity. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Just curious, where is this "sufficient evidence" for "macho harassing" "over a period of years"? --A.Savin 13:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Not too sure that this meets the threshold for a de-adminship, has there been abuse of sysop tools? I see nothing in COM:DE-ADMIN where non-sysop behaviour is grounds for a removal process. I'm rather disappointed with the constant sniping and unhelpful comments. Even if A.Savin is contacting other "admins" off Commons (which is an unfounded allegation), the admin undertaking the admin action it responsible if it is a bad action, since all they have to do is ignore or say no. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This statement is correct, but the desysop process refers to "serious offenses", and does not require there to be any evidence of an "abuse of sysop tools" in order to start a desysop vote. For example, were a sysop rights holder to be persistently bullying, promote hate speech, or disruptive in other ways without ever misusing the sysop tools, the community may judge this to be an offense serious enough to lose trust and fail to meet the requirements of Commons:Administrators#Community role. From the evidence and responses given earlier in this thread and earlier discussions, the specific requirement of prepared to work constructively with others has been repeatedly failed. Hounding others to provoke a response is the precise opposite of that requirement. --Fæ (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Just curious, where exactly did I "persistently bullying", "promote hate speech" (??), and/or being "disruptive in other ways"? --A.Savin 13:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is a desysop vote, there will be a discussion section where you will be welcome to protest, be "curious", or even nit-pick over other people's past hypothetical statements, even where these logically made no claim whatsoever about you, if you really think that's an appropriate position to justify you can be trusted by the wider community, and an effective way of demonstrating that you do not hound other contributors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Kind of a Presumption of guilt? Unbelievable. --A.Savin 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The RFA system is well established, as is the desysop system, neither is intended as a judicial or criminal process. It is a fact that the current system measures popularity rather than competence or case evidence. If you want to propose changes, use COM:VPP, not this desysop "prior discussion". --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Fæ, if you want the COM:DE-ADMIN to go beyond on what is currently there, draft it. Or draft a Code of Conduct for Administrators, since I'm not going to use what I feel (personal opinion) when stating an view on what I see that currently exists. Again, I wish all editors would just walk away, rather than the current behaviour that we've seen. Bidgee (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"serious offenses" is precisely the wording from that document as agreed by community consensus. There is no requirement to be any evidence of an "abuse of sysop tools" for a desysop prior discussion to proceed. No change or proposal is needed to apply precisely the words of the existing official policy. --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fæ: The de-admin procedure was written in mind to prevent a desysop just because someone holds a grudge, which seems the case here. So I think your interpretation here, while maybe in line with the letter, is against the spirit of the policy. panda kekok 9 02:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Does not hold water. It is both factually incorrect to parody this "vote for a vote" as a person with a "grudge" as this ignores the wealth of evidence of bad faith behaviours shown in the links and diffs above and igores the good faith votes of many contributors to this discussion, further the RFA and desysop processes are a community process, this suffers from being a majority popularity vote, but it is a vote of the community and does not have a specific outcome just because one person "with a grudge" or one person nominating one of their "pals" created it. --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Support: About time. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, Admins should be held to a high standard, and should not inspire fear by ruling with an iron fist. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Kinda ironic for someone who wants to be admin. panda kekok 9 02:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Unwarranted and drama-seeking comment. Can you not try to start something? Thanks. 1989 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Unwarranted? Are you not reading COM:AN/B? Maybe you should stop with your "diva" tactics, leaving Commons then returning back when the cloud's are clear. panda kekok 9 02:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave Commons and come back (or not) whenever I damn well please, and the reasons for it are most certainly none of your business. Now stop this drama-seeking nonsense. 1989 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but AFAIK, you're the one who's most likely to seek drama here. No wonder you got desysopped. EOD. panda kekok 9 03:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Drama-seeking, rude, petty... with your attitude, you'll never touch the mop, I guarantee you that. EOD. 1989 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Great disicion. As always let's protect and regret the users who just don't want to understand what's wrong with their contribution. --Stolbovsky (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Which users would they be? This is a discussion about A. Savin, not anyone else. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per Stolbovsky. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose what Ymblanter says. But I do support ending all current Mexican standoffs. Natuur12 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW I don't think we need to mention specific nationalities like this, especially on a multilingual wiki. --Rs chen 7754 23:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  - Perhaps you could teach this non native speaking an alternate idiom that is synonymous with the commonly used idiom I used? Natuur12 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Support We will hide and remove everything that prevents A.Savin from sleeping well. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose (Sorry for my, maybe, poor English) I am little bit know A. Savin and A. Savin is an adequate person. And I think he is one of the best from few number of (remained) Russian-speaking admins. I see much disputes on this page, but I think it's just bad moment (russian: неудачный момент) where all when all people are angry after 2 months of second COVID winter. (I'm not feel good too, BTW) --Brateevsky {talk} 19:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure we are allowed to be influenced by such external issues here. The general impression I gain from 13 years here is that we are supposed to leave our humanity at the door when we enter, and become some sort of mystical fairytale creatures or Enid Blyton personalities who are at all times "After you, Claude; No, after YOU, Cecil". There's no allowance for a bad hair day, being put in peril by non-socially distanced and unmasked morons or the myriad of other things that make you less than all sweetness and light. And the sooner WMF T&S and other realise that is wrong, the better. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Support No abuse of tools, but abuse of status by using intimidation. Not what I would expect from an administrator on any Wikimedia site. --Rs chen 7754 23:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Ymblanter. -- Geagea (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment per Colin, Rschen7754, Christian Ferrer, TommyG and own experience here with A. Savin only 2 weeks ago admonishing of behavior should help. Indeed I wouldn't like to miss his great fotos. But his aggressive behavior and attacking other users is scandalous. And it is not like he wants to make us believe, that he only would react aggressive, but he has talent to start attacking and offending either. Especially as an admin he should cooperate with AGF and realize that it's a wiki.Oursana (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Support For several reasons with insults, threats and several other cases that havent stopped even after constant admonishing and for several years. Disclaimer: In a paricular case, as linked above, i was one of two users (the other one wasnt even related with this particular case) called by of being part of an Party of crooks and thieves i.e being corrupt. Besides the lame excuse of this being a russian expression, his phrase "Usual corruption here instead of encouraging of quality work" shows that he, in that paricular case, considered almost every other user and administrator as being corrupt as there can be any corruption without corruptors\corrupted\corrupts. Corruption does not exist in natural state but demands human intervention or, more simply, corruption does not exist in the abstract and without humans. Albeit how much spinning you may want to add to the contrary, this unproven accusations were meant as insults and not as mere and harmeless russian expressions or saying that there was corruption without corrupts. Tm (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutral: I'd prefer sysops to stand for re-election after, say, 3 years. That would solve such problems automatically and would force some sysops to reconsider their behavior. --Achim (talk)

500% agree, this is why I did it by myself, I gave back my tools after 5 years (if I remember well) and I have made another request for adm. a few months later. And I will likely do again the same thing. A.Savin likely prefer keep his rights lifelong without having to make the slightest effort of behavior. Furthermore A.Savin thinks that this kind of thing is a "waste of time". That's very reflective on how A.Savin cares about community opinion. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: To be fair to A.Savin, he was responding to Davey2010 about your RfA being a waste of time. He was actually arguing that your second RfA is not a waste of time, because he opposed it. A "waste of community time" for him is "when someone [probably a good admin without any controversy] gives back the sysop tools for no logical reason and then, after short time, suddenly wants to have it back." panda kekok 9 03:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would also support such a proposal (re-elections after 3 years for all admins which is currently done at the Hebrew Wikipedia). 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We have tried this at NL-wiki (but those were annual re-elections). They mere were another source of drama, bickering and infighting. And still, the admins that showed higly toxic behavior got re-elected anyways. There's simply no time to carefully weight any evidence when there are several admins up for re-evaluation. Natuur12 (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If only we could have only administrators that are able to resign themselves and to ask to be reconfirmed by a new election in case there is controversy. But that would mean that we would only have good administrators. Obviously we are not here. And if in addition, the administrators not able to resign themselves were not encouraged to hang on, it would help too. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Likely a mediation between two users is required here, i doubt that this wold resolve any problem. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I oppose the de-adminship of A.Savin, as I don't think he lost the trust of the community, and as Steinsplitter said, it wouldn't resolve the problem between A.Savin and Kalbbes. However, I don't mind having a de-RFA as a re-assessment. I think it would be best for A.Savin to voluntarily open himself up for reconfirmation, just like what Fastily did, considering the many controversies in AN/U A.Savin got involved in. I would support his reconfirmation if he does so. panda kekok 9 03:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment Removing the administrator status is not a punishment but well a way to avoid future potential conflicts, and to avoid additional pressure for A.Savin who don't show that he is able to change is behavior. Those who think it is A.Savin and me are wrong. And all those who encourage him not to question himself, does not serve him or the community. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Shooting with a canon to a mosquito. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^{Overleg • CA} 10:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Support: Not the first time. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Gérald Garitan (talk · contribs)

Please pay attention to this user. When I browse the files uploaded by him, I otice he had uploaded some historical photos as Own work or Template:Cc-by-sa4.0. This situation has been going on for a long time. Maybe we should ban him? (｀・ω・´) (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Obviously some language issue here. This user doesn't seem to speak English. I will look and check. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User deleting link between the Thin Blue Line flag and the Blue Lives Matter movement

Users involved (on Commons):

badzil (talk · contribs) (requestor)
The IPA (talk · contribs)

The description of File:Thin Blue Line Flag (United States).svg was modified on 2 occasions in the past week to replace the sentence

Flag commonly associated with Blue Lives Matter. The flag is a version of the American flag in white, black, and blue.

with

The blue line flag is a simultude of the American flag in white, black, and blue.

At the same time the user is also rewriting history in the associated Wikipedia article: Blue Lives Matter. They attempted to establish a consensus back in May 2020 without success and are now pushing their point-of-view without consensus. I've attempted to discuss with the user via diff messages but this is without success so far. Badzil (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked the IPA for a year from editing the file. IPA can still edit everything else. Taivo (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ackadloor and User:Mohammed Naseeruddin GHMC

The users are engaged in uploading images from Facebook and involved in sockpuppetry. See w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammed Naseeruddin GHMC. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Amkgp: Please see m:srg#Global lock for Asimrasool1998. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Atdheu Fragmentar (talk · contribs)

Remove {{Copyvio}} multiple times without explaining the reason. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I asked the identity to be confirmed with a message to COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Damian Alexander Macay Pinacay

Damian Alexander Macay Pinacay (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 4nn1l2. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Bull-Doser

User: Bull-Doser (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: This is a followup to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 54#User:Bull-Doser. I warned the user to stop multiple-voting in this edit 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC), but they have continued[13][14][15][16].

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean to talk to (or about) Myloufa. It's not quite as bad as what happened last October. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Genuine question Bull-Doser - Why are you !voting multiple times ?, The last diff really does take the biscuit and I'm intrigued as to why you do it ?, It can't be simple forgetfulness surely ?, FWIW I double-!voted at an AFD (EN) once and when it was pointed to me I immediately struck it .... but I'm perplexed as to how you !vote 3 times in one DR...... –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about it. Voting multiple times ain't harassment. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Never said it was but you know it's not allowed so why do it?, You've been editing here non stop since 2006 so you must of ventured to DR prior to 2018 (your first DR) and you must of known multiple-!voting wasn't allowed or wasn't a thing?. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Beeb28

User: Beeb28 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Copyvios and promotion of self, own music, and own record company.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 07:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done. No deleted edits or copyvios after your warning on 11th of February at 10:26. All uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: Did you see this gem? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I deleted the userpage. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikrad2020

User: Nikrad2020 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:Sizpay-Logo-JPG-Way2pay-98-04-11.jpg after final warning for doing so.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I can see 2 copyvios after warning, so I block Nikrad only for a week. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mahaveer Indra

Mahaveer Indra (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Long term uploader of images that are subject to copyright violations. Reapetedly uploading images that are not CC BY-SA 4.0 eligible. Has been warned several times before but still engaged in uploading images that are not free. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked the user for a week and deleted some copyvios. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Saudagar abhishek

Saudagar abhishek (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. --- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 16:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Fitindia. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Khgg19

Khgg19 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after warnings. This user has been blocked three times before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked Khgg for a year, which allows us to block him/her for fifth time also (the fifth block will be indefinite). Taivo (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

photos indésirables

Bonjour,

Je reçois aujourd'hui, 21 février 2021, un message de la personne, Marta Petreu, écrivain roumain, et dont les photos figurent sur la page suivante https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Marta_Petreu?uselang=fr me demandant lasuppression de toutes ses photos, utilisées à mauvais escient par des personnes qui souhaitent l'attaquer et/ou se moquer d'elle.

Certaines de ces photos ayant déjà été récupérées par ses "adversaires", quelle serait d'après vous la meilleure solution pour en venir à bout ? Supprimer totalement la page en question (ce que je ne puis moi-même effectuer) ? Modifier le copyright, et comment ? - (NB. je n'ai aucune envie, ni le temps, de m'attaquer auxdites personnes).

Je vous joins le texte et l'une de mes photos que m'a adressée Marta Petreu : https://www.cotidianul.ro/marta-petreu-grosolana-mistificare-pe-tarimul-vietii-lui-mihai-eminescu/ et dont le titre de l'article pourrait être :" Marta Petreu - grossière mystification concernant le vie de Mihai Eminescu" (NB. le plus grand poète roumain, dont une statue figure à Paris, devant le Collège de France)

Merci pour votre aide !

Martin Greslou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Greslou (talk • contribs) 14:37, 21 February 2021‎ (UTC)

unwanted photos

Hello,

Today, February 21, 2021, I receive a message from the person, Marta Petreu, Romanian writer, whose photos appear on the following page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Marta_Petreu?uselang=en asking me to delete all of her photos, misused by people who wish to attack and / or make fun of her.

Some of these photos having already been recovered by his "adversaries", what do you think would be the best solution to overcome them? Completely delete the page in question (which I cannot do myself)? Change copyright, and how? - (NB. I have no desire, nor the time, to attack the said people).

I enclose the text and one of my photos sent to me by Marta Petreu: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.cotidianul.ro/marta-petreu-grosolana-mistificare-pe-tarimul-vietii-lui-mihai-eminescu/ and whose title of the article could be: "Marta Petreu - gross mystification concerning the life of Mihai Eminescu" (NB. the greatest Romanian poet, whose statue appears in Paris, in front of the College of France)

Thanks for your help !

Martin Greslou

translator: Google Translate via — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Greslou: Salut et bienvenue. Cet article a violé vos droits d'auteur sur File:Marta Petreu Paris02.jpg, vous pouvez poursuivre. Vous pouvez également poursuivre la suppression de n'importe lequel de vos fichiers par COM:D/fr.

Hi, and welcome. That article violated your copyright in File:Marta Petreu Paris02.jpg, you could pursue that. You may also pursue deletion of any of your files per COM:D. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Retail 247

User: Retail 247 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading (retail logos as own work) after DR and warning for doing so.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Done, blocked for 3 days--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Eloquent Peasant

User The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continuously ignoring guidelines agreed by Wikiproject:Puerto Rico to reach consensus when using and replacing files relating to Puerto Rico. User has constantly contradicted themselves in statements relating to consensus yet have failed to do so. An example of a file replaced without reasoning other then personal preference is this file which was replaced on wikipedia and wikidata without consensus by this file. With the attitude of the user this can be considred as disruptive editing, especially after claiming that "If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles" which you can ctrl-f and find on this specific noticeboard. It seems the user is appealing to ones self interest then others as a group. Here is the page for consensus discussion which was agreed upon we would all have to agree to use files here. The user clearly has done this with almost all files added and replaced after the agreement. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done This is clearly Wikiproject:Puerto Rico/English Wikipedia problem, not a Wikimedia Commons problem . The reported user has done nothing wrong here, at least taking into account the files you have mentioned. --jdx ^Re: 11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

К.Лаврентьев

User: К.Лаврентьев (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after block for doing so.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked him now for half of year. Taivo (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Hellengil

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Blocked for 2 weeks. They know they're uploading copyvios Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

David Supervid

David Supervid (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

i warned this user not to remove npd tags at 11:31, 22 February 2021, but s/he removed more tags afterwards. EugeneZelenko tagged the photos which were obviously not PD-textlogo. sysops could you please delete the copyvio photos?--RZuo (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for a week to give us a chance to sort out his uploads Gbawden (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Alorwa

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

Copyvios after last warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Done, blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Putra Yudha Pradana

Putra Yudha Pradana (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Blocked for a week Gbawden (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Gbawden. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Cookieman1.1.1 is making funny statements

...Cookieman1.1.1 is stating that the blazon filed with the INSTITUTO DE CULTURA PUERTORRIQUENA is unreliable. How can that be so? I am concerned that he is not sensitive to the importance of respecting that the correct versions of a town's symbol are displayed on wikipedia articles. He is replacing my images with his.

However, I am creating coat of arms based on what I read filed with the INSTITUTO DE CULTURA PUERTORRIQUENA

This is the coat of arms that was filed, officially. So he does not speak Spanish and can not interpret the blazon on file.

Cookieman1.1.1 is also uploading copyright items. Such as File:Coat of arms of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.svg

Exact is found on the town's website and marked copyright. http://www.guaynabocity.gov.pr/post/guaynabos-city-hall/

I don't place a copyright notice delete on his page because if / when an editor places a notice on his user page, he quickly blanks it out.

--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: I notified him for you. Please do that yourself next time. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Heraldry teacher for 2 years here. The blazon filed by most American authorities are incorrect and don't represent an actual blazon. The same one that the Instituto De Cultura Puertoriquena made follows the same principle. While I can agree with the belt should be cut off at the end; majority of the blazons like Cookieman has stated are just descriptions. If an Puerto Rican herald could follow up with the full Spanish blazon of Arecibo, we could easily resolve this. If not at the least; a member of government there. On the copyright note; all coat of arms on Wikipedia are independent of copyright restrictions through the usage of the Insignia template; and they are also work derivative of another person; not just a recreation of the one on the site. If we are to use the original one just from the site; we could just get around this with the non-free template as well to showcase the coat of arms (as a .png preferrably). I am happy to answer any more questions you have. Niko3818 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Niko3818: Hi, and welcome. Please note that any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, instead. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Howday, I believe there is some confusion on The Eloquent Peasant's side on how this stuff works... You see, I do admit that I was incorrect listing Instituto De Cultura Puertoriquena as unreliable, however the semi-blason (I call it this because it isn't a proper heraldic emblazonment) states nowhere that the belt has to be in a certain attitude or postion... therefore being the reason i continuously stated "Not blazon specific". I have changed the belt to prevent the dispute from continuing. On the coat of arms of Guaynabo and you marking it as copyvio, it isn't based off the one used on any government website. The thing you are confusing it with is the Municpalities seal which features the coat of arms inside of it. As we both know, all Puerto Rican coats of arms are in public domain as they all have expired and non-renewed copyrights (the WikiProject actually had a discussion on this and The Eloquent Peasant was the one who contacted the PR.gov on the matter). I'd also like to thank Niko3818 for pointing this out the insignia part also. As for me blanking out my DR's is simply because: a. Im fine and agree with the deletion. b. the deletion request was closed.

I would also like to add that I am replacing files in good faith, as The Eloquent Peasant's svg versions of some arms where not exactly accurate to put it kindly. A good example is File:Escudo de Aguada, Puerto Rico.svg which i superseded with File:Coat of arms of Aguada, Puerto Rico.svg.

I would like to ask the user to please next time respond to notifications relating to the discussion of files instead of ignoring and taking something small to administation. I am a very reasonable person and willing to work with anyone :) --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cookieman1.1.1: how long have you and I been working on this? If you were reasonable, I would not have to "come here". The PR Coats of Arms are not all in the public domain as many were created / designed in the 70s and that issue of whether it is or not in the public domain has never been settled even with my contacting the government of P.R.. Also, don't talk to me as if I'm your friend on file discussions. I am not your friend and you are clearly not my friend. You have never worked well with me or the Puerto Rico project. You insist on adding images / coat of arms regardless of the feedback the project members provide to you. When I just discussed this image, that there was a problem with your version on the coat of arms- you dismissed me and said the one filed with the Cultural Institute of P.R. is unreliable. How is that possible. That's the one filed by the artist with the PR government. The hell? On your coat of arms if you indicate non - blazon specific then don't insist on putting it on the article, because if it's not blazon specific it is your interpretation of the symbol which may not be the best representation of that town's symbol. Discuss with the Puerto Rico project. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Done user admitted " I was incorrect listing Instituto De Cultura Puertoriquena as unreliable" and changed their disrespectful version of a country's / towns symbols. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: Decorum please, we aren't friends. Did I even mention that? No relationship isn't a reason to be disrespectful. However we are people looking to do the same thing which is why I am speaking to and of you in a friendly manner. This isn't the first time you've came at me in an unfriendly and unwelcomed manner. The "blazon" you provided doesn't prove that my file version is inferior, again not blazon specific. The issue isnt if I was incorrect on if something was reliable, its if that source actually supports anything you are saying to me. It's very sad, especially over something you should have talked over. You genuinely have made me contemplate leaving wikipedia and wikicommons all together. I've spoken with plenty of other users on this and majority have told me to just report you, however I am reasonable and if I wasn't I would have reported you after the "have a nice life sweetheart" incident back in 2020.

Maybe I was too friendly :/ --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There's another issue with this editor related to uploading images that are protected under copyright. To wit, Cookieman has uploaded the flag and seal of the City of Taylor, Michigan, now twice. They were deleted last month as copyright violations. Originally, Cookieman claimed a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for these images, if I'm remembering correctly. This time around, the user had claimed that license on the seal, again implying he is the creator of the design involved. For the other graphic, he claimed that the image was in the public domain based on age considerations. Funnily enough, the City was only incorporated in 1968, meaning its flag could not have been created between 1926 and 1963. I believe some coaching in copyright basics are in order before this user uploads more questionable graphics. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult to see a correct count of the number of copyright images Cookieman1.1.1 has uploaded and had deleted by the community because he's blanked out his Commons discussion page, each time. But these are some of the images that have been deleted due to copyright issues or missing source:

Deleted for Copyright violation
File:Flag of Traverse City, Michigan.svg
File:Seal of Traverse City, Michigan.svg
File:Seal of Travese City, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Mackinaw City, Michigan, USA.svg
File:Flag of Dearborn, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Canton, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Lansing, Michigan.svg
File:Logo of the Taylor, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Brownstown, Michigan.svg
File:Seal of Brownstown, Michigan.svg
File:Flag of Pass Christian, Mississippi.svg

and currently many of his other images are marked for deletion due to copyright. He added the Public Domain license expired license for the File:Coat of arms of Arecibo, Puerto Rico.svg that he created, however, this coat of arms is not in the PD as it was adopted in 1968. He should read and reread the copyright page and terms of use page. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Do I see a pattern here? There's another issue with this editor (Cookieman) in that he uploaded a copy of a page that had previously been deleted by an Admin, here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cookieman1.1.1&oldid=1003581139). The second upload has been requested by a 3rd party to be speedily deleted. Granted, this was in a sister project, but it begs the question, "Is this editor performing per Wikimedia policies or per his own personal interests as opposed to community interests?" Mercy11 (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

this. There are just no words for this. According to user - So the same image (mine should be deleted for copyvio but his (same image just .svg) should not by some .. I don't know... by some play on words? I have no idea. Can someone please tell me what's going on?

And whatever I do, he can do better. hahaha Ex. 1

-->

and Ex. 2

-->

If he only knew, I am just an old grandma. I guess now you know. I'm just a very old grandma. Sitting in my rocking chair making inferior coat of arms shields for Puerto Rico based on Spanish text, that I tend to understand.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not take better quality files as me trying to "one up you" per se, if I was then I would have replaced all of your files and there is no reason for that. The majority of your Puerto Rican coats of arms are perfectly fine and I thank you for that. However coats of arms like Aguada is an asset bash and its quality is very low for an svg, especially since it uses png's converted into svg's. I call it inferior because of a few reasons I've pointed out on the files discussion page. I do appreciate that you have fixed the tinctures from what it looks. We should use Heralder/Sodacan type assets when we make coats of arms and follow the blazon as it is high quality and avoids possible copyright issues. With the arms of Guaynabo I've changed the arms and updated it with one that follows its blazon and not a design. Therefore i marked the png version of my own as its based off the website. Finally with the Arecibo coat of arms it looks very similar to the ones used by the municpality which could be and issue. You've also used the words "templates" when describing the belt which i question what you mean by that and if you are looking at images and not blazons. If you would get back to me when I pinged you and respond to questions that would honestly help next time. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are replacing my files with yours,but not because yours are better but because you just want to. As you know you have been invited to the PR Project Symbols Project and that is where we work together. Example of how you replace my files with yours: Ex. # 3

==>

That's what you have been doing. Note: The PR Symbols Project page - Remember that place?

Is this really a file

you think we want on the Trujillo Alto wikipedia articles? I don't think so, but of course that is what is there now because no one here is going to beg you to fix files that you put on the Puerto Rico municipality pages and no one here is going to edit war with you. Not everyone shares your aesthetics and do continue discussions on these specifics on the Puerto Rico Symbols Project page. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I find it rude of you to assume such, If you look at your files i have stated multiple times the blatant issues they have. I also find it rude that you ask if I remember the project, hell I do and the last few days I've added to the discussion if you would look and give feedback like i have been asking for the last few days instead of ignoring it. Also there isn't really any point of a standards page if you are going to upload files without reaching a consensus instead of uploading and putting check marks without agreement. Would you like to talk about more issues? This isn't on the matters of aesthetics, its on quality. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

When you added / updated the

, with the new light green stuff on the mountain, what specific blazon are you referring to, since you don't understand Spanish? We do give you comments, offer encouragement, and reach consensus on the PR Symbols project page because the participant's on that wiki project care about having quality images on the wikipedia articles.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you should remove the Trujillo Alto stuff on the mountain. It looks really awful. I am a lady - a lady who's been around awhile so please be a gentleman... --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cookieman1.1.1: see prior comment. If you don't update this file, I'll create my own and add it to the Trujillo articles. Instead of fixing the image you made it worst and I feel intimidated with this action of yours. The action I am referring to is this. You took a file Trujillo Coat of Arms which is used on multiple files and you made something quite strange. I have / we have tried for many months, since you joined Wikipedia to work with you but this action of yours is really, first immature, secondly not good. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: Why are you bringing up design when we literally have a whole page on the wikiproject to discuss it? I replaced it because the orignal file i made was based off the design of the municipal coat of arms from a PDF and this version is based of the blazon to aviod future copyvio issues. I may not be fluent in Spanish but I can comprehend basic Spanish and whenever I need a translation for a blazon I know many Spanish speaking Heralds who help, I feel as if you take me for a imbecile. It would be absolutely hypocritical to replace the file with your own after saying you support "consensus" on symbols for Puerto Rico. I'll bring it up on PR symbols if its such a concern with yourself. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism is what I thought you were doing with your first coat of arms of Yauco back around September 2020, where you put 14 snakes instead of the correct 7 snakes. But now I understand that you just don't understand the Spanish descriptions for the coat of arms.

It has to do with you not having command of the Spanish language. But I didn't know that the first time I started an Admin problems with user.

i.e. the Yauco municipio blazon states "7 snakes: 4 on the left and 3 on the right" but you have 14 snakes. BTW, Your rrecent Yauco COA looks good (not copyvio) but still has 14 snakes when it should only have 7.

i.e. the Arecibo municipio crown uses a Taino crown not the crown you have on your file...

Given, I should not have yelled out you here last week and that was rude re: Trujillo Alto. What I meant when I yelled- what I should have said "is that what you think we what for Trujillo Alto?" I should have said that the Trujillo Alto COA looks to be a copyvio of what is on the municipio page.. but not only yours, the other two versions by other users as well.

So you responded by updating the flag with what I consider to be vandalism.

I do think, as we have done in the last few days with your rendition of the Juncos coa, you should continue to work with us. You should continue to help us with the PR Symbols project. Please don't be tempted to vandalize. I apologize for snapping. I'm not accusing you of vandalism but given that I am old woman (I have seen a lot of things), what I see on your subsequent action to my yelling with Trujillo Alto COA is vandalism. I promise I'll assume good faith, now that I understand the issue (Spanish language limitations). I'll keep providing the blazons for your creations as well, if you like. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cookieman1.1.1: You constantly copy others work and call it your own, mine and others. You copied someone's work and called it your own, here:

You say you're here to teach me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Puerto_Rico/Standards/Symbols&diff=prev&oldid=1006660587 or how you put it "to User:Cookieman1.1.1/Heraldicfactsandlogic|destroy others with farts and logic about heraldry" First try learning about copyright and attribution.

We're obviously not here with the same spirit so do stay away from me and do not copy my images and call them your own.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about that I responded by updating the flag? I haven't touched that file in months. Also as for the user box, I feel as if you are taking that too personally, especially calling it "farts and logic" when it is meant to be an inside joke between myself and a few others from WikiProject:Micronations. Also it is a bit contradictory to say you wish for me to continue helping and that you will help then to say to me to stay away from yourself; very interesting rhetoric you have. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cookieman1.1.1: Many of your coats of arms have been accepted with no qualms. I would suggest you finish the Vega Baja coat of arms that you started. The Puerto Rico team has achieved consensus on the Trujillo Alto coat of arms. Clearly consensus is to not use your Trujillo Coat of arms version. See consensus on the Trujillo Alto coat of arms. Regarding your statement - "What are you talking about that I responded by updating the flag? I haven't touched that file in months." I did mean the Trujillo Alto COA not the flag. What does Micronations have to do with Wikipedia? I'm not familiar with Micronations. Please revert your revert as we do not want your version of the Trujillo Alto coat of arms. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Micronations are literally a whole subject, Wikiproject and whole hobby. Can you please stop carrying this argument out as its honestly dead. The admins over at wikipedia have already dealt with you are your behavior here relating to files and I would like for you to please stop pestering myself as I have a life and cant tend to arguing with you over personal preferences like you have done for months. Now please take care and have a nice night. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Commons Admin ... please delete the that user continues to place on Wikipedia articles without consensus. The PR project members do not want his file on the articles. In fact it should be deleted because user has made changes to the article. The mountains look like breasts with nipples and then he added a light-colored something flowing .. please do not think this is funny. I don't. I believe there is a Code of Conduct which prohibits uploading images that hurt a particular people. So please address this issue. Also user seems to be Now... conspiring to get me topic banned with another user who joined Wikipedia in January 2021. This is a problem across Commons and English Wikipedia so I'm not sure how to handle it. I am a member in good standing, having worked on PR articles and other articles for about nine years. I've never had a problem with anyone. Please help me. I have done nothing wrong but have only tried every way I can to ask the user to stop creating images that do not correctly represent the Puerto Rico coat of arms or flags.

Alsno note that the user, in his previous posts, mentioned micronations and a user at Micronations with same user name has founded a micronation and he has made himself the president of such micronation which unfortunately includes Puerto Rico. The problem is Puerto Rico is not a micronation. Perhaps the user has taken his imagination too far and transfered his micronation hobby to Wikipedia so I am baffled. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, you are now cyber stalking me. What is your problem? You are claiming things i've never done. Yeah i've made a micronation and so what? It doesn't reflect my work on wikipedia one iota. My micronation doesn't include Puerto Rico, you are using cyber stalking to form false pretenses against me. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Eloquent_Peasant This isn't conspiring against you, its you causing me problems. I don't even feel comfortable now with how deep you are digging into my personal life and hobbies. Admins please help. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:EJ Bishop3

EJ Bishop3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Blocked for one week. Jianhui67^T★C 10:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jianhui67. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Jaydencubano39

Jaydencubano39 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Another Cubano incarnation, once again adding nonsense. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Troy26Castillo

User: Troy26Castillo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio-only uploading after final warning for doing so, including flickrwashing File:BINI in Da Coconut Nut music video.jpg from their own Flickr account dan26gel AKA https://www.flickr.com/photos/192246798@N05 , which needs to be blacklisted. Admitted to being Dan26gel (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user here in this edit.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Uploads nuked, flickr account blacklisted and blocked for a month. Perhaps a bit harsh but they know what they are doing Gbawden (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Fadewwiki

Fadewwiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Commons:License laundering? This user found an image on other site, uploaded it to Flickr, and then uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. I suspect so.

File (URL) - Uploaded date (time), Order: Wikimedia Commons, Flickr, other site

Case-1

File:Laksam_health_professionals_participating_in_a_funeral_of_a_COVID-19_deceased_patient.jpg - 2021-02-12 10:07:37

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50934544583/ - 2021-02-12

https://www.facebook.com/noman390/photos/pcb.1155473521479959/1155473351479976/ - 2020-05-18

Case-2

File:Purba_Laksam_from_Skyview.jpg - 2021-02-12 08:45:41

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50935209422/ - 2021-02-12

https://www.facebook.com/NfgcLaksam/photos/pcb.2917942231622515/2917939951622743/ - 2020-05-01

Case-3

File:Laksam_Jagannath_Temple_(Jaghannath_Mandir).jpg - 2021-02-10 08:52:59

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50928580256/ - 2021-02-10

https://bengali.news18.com/photogallery/coronavirus-latest-news/puri-jagannath-temple-shuts-down-in-corona-panic-sr-424676.html - 2020-03-19

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey Yuraily Lic, I appreciate your efforts to eradicate copyright violation from Wikimedia, can I know what are the reasons for your suspicion? Unless you have some exact proof or facts, I don't think it's a good idea to rouse suspicion on someone based only on your conjecture. I found those pictures on Flickr, and I uploaded them to Wikimedia. Since they are freely licensed, anyone could use these pictures, hence you provided some website links, they might also get the pics from flicker and uploaded them on their websites. If you have any proof or can show some proper reasons why these pics should be removed/my account should be placed under some restriction or action, I'd like to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadewwiki (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There are more. They were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on the same day they were uploaded to Flickr. They were from the same Flickr account.

Case-4

File:Laksam_Al_Amin_High_School.jpg - 2021-02-10 12:22:01

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50929030846/ - 2021-02-10

https://www.facebook.com/798884383499533/photos/3489817324406212/ - 2020-11-18

Case-5

File:Students_of_Al_Amin_Institute_pays_tribute_to_language_martyrs.jpg -2021-02-10 12:22:01

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50929152517/ - 2021-02-10

https://www.facebook.com/AAIOfficial/photos/a.1171992169522084/2112760288778596/ - 2019-02-20

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you need more examples?

Case-6

File:Laksam_government_pilot_high_school.jpg - 2021-02-15 09:05:03

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50944927548/ - 2021-02-15

https://www.facebook.com/Laksam.pilot/photos/a.1608420476125420/1608428962791238/ - 2016-09-19

Case-7

File:Laksam_Pilot_Government_High_School_Logo.jpg - 2021-02-15 17:21:55

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50947029862/ - 2021-02-15

https://www.facebook.com/Laksam.pilot/photos/a.1608420659458735/1608420662792068/ - 2016-09-19

Case-8

File:Student_Assembly_at_Laksam_Al_Amin_Institute.jpg - 2021-02-11 12:17:49‎

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/50932470607/ - 2021-02-11

https://www.facebook.com/107342027691229/photos/pcb.160927478999350/160926555666109/ -2020-10-21

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The judgment of the relationship between this Flickr user and User:Fadewwiki, I will leave it to the admins. But, as you can see, this Flickr user has uploaded others' photos. This is obvious. I think that all photos transferred from this Flickr user should be deleted. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please let me say one more thing.

The date of the oldest uploaded by the Flickr user - 9 February 2021

The date of User:Fadewwiki's account was created - 9 February 2021

After this, the Flickr user's album and User:Fadewwiki's uploads are going together.

192081627@N03's album

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192081627@N03/albums/72157718229031357

User:Fadewwiki's uploads

Special:ListFiles/Fadewwiki

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Still not enough?

User:Fadewwiki's first upload, it's the Al Amin Institute's logo. It shows that Fadewwiki has a strong interest in the institution.

The Flickr user, who coincidentally started on the same day, uploaded photos related to the Al Amin Institute, too. (under a bogus free-use license)

Fadewwiki and the Flickr user were active on the same day, and inactive on the same day.

--Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Warning sent. Could you please tag the files? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yann and Yuraily Lic: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "192081627@N03". — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 21:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann and Jeff G..

Pinging @Fadewwiki, Do you have any opinions? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

All files have been deleted ~~or tagged as copyvios~~. This appears to be classic flickrwashing. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeff G., Yann, and FitIndia. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yuraily Lic: You're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

four users

The following four users have uploaded files that were previously uploaded by User:RockqunB and deleted as copyvio or advertisement. (User_talk:RockqunB)

How should I deal with them? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Belongs to COM:AN#FYI and asking for assistance (spammers from Turkey). Users blocked indef, Steven43425 as well. All uploads deleted, can be tagged for speedy as advertisement (G10). Thanks for notifying! --Achim (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you, Achim. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

socks of LTA Marat Gubaiev

After being notifed by User:NickK, ‎I've indef-blocked Silmarillion c (talk · contribs), who is a sock of already globally locked Silmarillion b (talk · contribs), as both had uploaded a personality-rights-violating file (now oversighted). When trying to protect the filename, the next sock appeared Silmarillion a (talk · contribs), which I've also indef-blocked. According to NickK they are socks of LTA Marat Gubaiev. --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these are socks of m:Special:CentralAuth/Marat Gubaiev (with multiple other accounts and many more IP vandalism edits). He was very active here in September (notably on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Літары беларускай арабіцы.svg from 195.114.144.0/21) and unfortunately is back now — NickK (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. They all are globally locked and their uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Problematic fangirling

From a quick review of Golden eagle50 (talk · contribs) and Shadyamrxo (talk · contribs) history, seemingly fans of w:Marwan Pablo, there appears to be mass and repetitive uploading of blatant copyvios. Assem Khidhr (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. I warned both and deleted the uploads. Thanks for nominating the uploads for deletion! Taivo (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Imamul H. Ifaz

Imamul H. Ifaz (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Due to large number of copyvios during ling time I blocked the user for a month. Taivo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Bluruguay

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

Copyvios after warnings. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Blocked for a month. Thanks for reporting. Ahmad^talk 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahmad. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Germinal 31

Germinal 31 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Blocked for a week, all uploads are deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo and Nat. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Brobt

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

Second time the user is being warned here for disrupting the same file in a couple of monthsFile:Syrian Civil War map.svg. Makes unreferenced changes using Wikipedia as a source, and tells me to "try and fucking fix it instead of reverting my work". Please ban him this is too much. BrinyElephant (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What a shock! Another brand new account simply appearing out of thin air to revert edits to the Syrian Civil War image, using the same, outdated and biased sources as the last two guys, has taken me to the noticeboard! That's quite a coincidence, don't you think? I've had enough of this nonsense from you, GnomonTimber, oh sorry, I mean Briny Elephant. My changes are sourced, not by Wikipedia as I have made clear several times but that you somehow seem to not be grasping, and you are willingly and cognizantly undoing a literal year's worth of changing circumstances in favor of either Russian cartography which doesn't even portray all the parties in the war, or a independent chartering organization which hasn't updated its metrics since November.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, familiarize yourself with the stipulations of this image file: as described in its own description:

Information to editors: This file is completely based on the Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. If you want to change something here, you first need to make a properly sourced edit at the Templates' Module. Brobt (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Brobt is a sock puppet of BedrockPerson (talk · contribs). Note Brobt created en:Robert de Wintona as an exact copy of a deleted article created by NiebuhrKarsten (talk · contribs), a known BedrockPerson sock puppet. As usual, the accounts also show similarity of edits on en.wikt: [17][18]. Note evidence of similarity on commons: such as Jewish ethnicity[19][20], lingual disease[21][22] and signatures[23][24]. DrKay (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. BedrockPerson, BrinyElephant and NiebuhrKarsten are globally locked. If you claim, that Brobt is a sockpuppet, then you can ask checkusers. I see here importing problems from other projects into Commons; don't do that. Blocks in other projects do not mean that the user must be blocked in Commons as well. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser 'is a last resort for difficult cases'. This is not a difficult case. It is a known sock puppet of an account that is (despite your implying the contrary) blocked at commons. BedrockPerson is blocked by User:Ellin Beltz. DrKay (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi DrKay: Taivo is giving you the best help for Commons. We can't just say "this one is that one" zap, kaboom, gone. If you think (A) = (B) ; checkusers can verify and then most likely result is zap, kaboom, gone. If (A) != (B) then please provide Commons issues that we can examine for cause - or lack thereof. Each Wiki project has its own culture. Just because someone is doing fantastic on some other project - if they come here and become a problem - they may become gone from here and still be able to work over there. I can think of at least one situation like that. Also - problems from en:wiki need to stay over there. We are not able to catch up on our own work let alone engage with issues on other projects, much as many of us wish it were otherwise. Please take Taivo's advice. I usually do. Thank you for keeping watch over this and helping get proof! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Menoloreyu

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked the user for a week and nominated one of his/her uploads for regular deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Kiwigirl1313

Kiwigirl1313 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked her for a week and will delete her last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ngọc Lâm Trần

Ngọc Lâm Trần (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This user and Birthmark On Temple who I suspect to be his sockpuppet, have been constantly uploading misleading photos about his birthmark and some kind of psychology project that he is working on. Some of his photos were marked as possible copyvio by Túrelio. However, he kept reverting the template himself and even replaced it with a Delh template, concluding that the image is kept. Many other photos of are likely to be his own work; however, due to their misleadingness, I don't think they should be allowed on Commons. Please take a look at this account and the contributions (more of a mess) made by him GiaoThongVN (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Indeffed Ngọc Lâm Trần, Birthmark On Temple, and DNA-ADN as socks / not here to contribute to Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks GiaoThongVN (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

MyFashionRepublic

User: MyFashionRepublic (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued advertising or promotion attempts after warning for doing so, see abuse filter log. Already blocked on enwiki.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Indeffed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 01:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Bull-Doser

User: Bull-Doser (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: This is a followup to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 54#User:Bull-Doser. I warned the user to stop multiple-voting in this edit 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC), but they have continued[25][26][27][28].

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean to talk to (or about) Myloufa. It's not quite as bad as what happened last October. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Genuine question Bull-Doser - Why are you !voting multiple times ?, The last diff really does take the biscuit and I'm intrigued as to why you do it ?, It can't be simple forgetfulness surely ?, FWIW I double-!voted at an AFD (EN) once and when it was pointed to me I immediately struck it .... but I'm perplexed as to how you !vote 3 times in one DR...... –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about it. Voting multiple times ain't harassment. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Never said it was but you know it's not allowed so why do it?, You've been editing here non stop since 2006 so you must of ventured to DR prior to 2018 (your first DR) and you must of known multiple-!voting wasn't allowed or wasn't a thing?. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Replacing section that got archived without being solved. --Myloufa (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bull-Doser: This comment is unacceptable, as are the multiple-!votes. You are free to comment in the deletion discussions as many times as you wish while they remain open, however, please limit your use of {{Vk}} and {{Vd}} to once per discussion, and remain civil (i.e. focus on policy, and why the file should be kept or deleted in accordance with policy, rather than on the actions of others or speculation of their intentions). Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
If I may add a little something, it's that it is barely possible to communicate with this user. He gave one or two answers that where not on the subect on this topic like he didn't or was able to understand. If you send him a message on his discussion page, he will answer you once with a vague answer and will ignore your other messages. (it's even worst on FRwiki, as he has a really, really bad french, at the point where his answers make no sense, and his answer in english are vague). This user is uploading tons of either low quality pictures of people or copyrighted car pictures. So, as it is about impossible to properly communicate with that user and that his contributions are questionable, I don't see why you should keep him here, even if it's been a while he's here. (For the record, he also have been banned from EnWiki, that's why he's trying to enforce his pictures and his crappy french in FrWiki). --Myloufa (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
French: @Myloufa: Oui, c'est clair qu'il y a un souci en termes de son niveau de français et c'est problèmatique le manque de communication de son part sur Wikipédia en français. Par contre, l'utilisation de l'adjectif crappy n'est pas acceptable pour décrire son niveau de français. Ses actions ailleurs ne sont pas pertinentes en ce qui concerne le cas présent. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
French: En fait, c'était plutôt pour illustrer le contexte global, car même sur Commons, c'est difficile de communiquer avec lui. --Myloufa (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done User has been informed here that multiple-!votes are not acceptable and that they should moderate their language. They have also been advised to focus on policy and base their argument on policy in a deletion discussion. The user in question has not participate in a DR since. No further action needed at this time. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Toto0949

Toto0949 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user uploaded at least 42 copyvios files in about 3 hours (from 03:03, 2 March 2021 to 05:54, 2 March 2021). --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with them? Did you make any attempt to explain what the problem was, to this brand new user? No. So why are you immediately calling for action here (presumably some form of blocking). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I don't necessarily want them to be blocked. There are many ways to deal with problematic users. I entrusted it to knowledgeable and experienced administrators to determine what action would be appropriate for this user.

By the way, if you think it's more important to explain it to new users, why don't you do it? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to spend your time on new users rather than on me? No one has stopped you explaining it to them. I expect that you will explain to many new users after this. Thank you. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done User warned by Túrelio and has not uploaded any file since. No further action necessary. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you, Nat, Túrelio and Ytoyoda. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Zangief7890

Zangief7890 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Done Blocked for one month. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Pi.1415926535. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Wowiskwpoopi

Wowiskwpoopi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This person has been persistently edit-warring on multiple images for close to 3 months now. They've been warned repeatedly to stop their disruptive behavior, but they haven't. They were edit-warring again as recently as yesterday. I think that an indefinite block is in order until this person can demonstrate that they have the proper temperament and maturity to edit here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to L&D's comment, here's a few exhibits of him committing these acts,

Exhibit A: Hurricane Marco

Exhibit B: Hurricane Isaias — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.59.134 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Flasty Jam (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked the user for a week due to edit warring after warnings. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Roman Miller

User: Roman Miller (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Used a bare {{Delete}} tag in this edit after this request and this warning.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Πατριάρχης Δημήτριος.jpg

Good day. This file was created based on another Wikimedia file. In the photo editor, I likened the features of Patriarch Bartholomew, depicted in the original, to the features of Patriarch Demetrius. No other file is used here. I am neither the author nor the author of the original file, so I cannot respond to the template. What do you advise as an administrator? It use this File: Varfholomey (2019-01-05) 25 (cropped).jpg The close situation with this file Demetrios I of Constantinople.jpg, that was uploaded to the Wikimedia by me — Preceding unsigned comment added by RC-1841 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@RC-1841: to request restoration of File:Πατριάρχης Δημήτριος.jpg, please use the COM:Undeletion requests. This page is intended to report problematic users or admins, and not a correct venue to request restoration of deleted files. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@RC-1841: since you need advice from admins, I think the best venue is COM:Village pump. Again, this is intended for filing reports on problematic users, not for requesting media assistance and/or media restorations (which is reserved to COM:Undeletion requests). Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Image and article problem

Can someone please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dan Trotta at the Gale Anne Hurd Masterclass (6829984489).jpg? The article on Wikipedia was deleted by User:HJ Mitchell as an attack page; the user says that the creator wrote up the article (and uploaded/fabricated that picture) after they had an online argument. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked Imissdisco for a week due to intimidation/harassment and deleted the file as out of scope. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Taivo, I'm not sure how to bring those two in agreement. Please reconsider, and y'all may be interested in this thread on en-wiki. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So Geo Swan is indefinitely blocked in en.wiki (the block can be appealed). This is their problem. I can see, that in Commons Imissdisco used the f-word and created 8 deletion requests for the same file. In the DR he said: "you do want to offend. You feed off these pathetic arguments. Sad little lives, really. Enjoy, trolls." – assuming bad faith is not a proper way for conversation. In my opinion the block is reasonable. Of course, if somebody else will unblock him, then I will not protest, but I stand behind my decision. Taivo (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: While I agree with your block of Geo Swan on English Wikipedia, I also agree with Taivo's block of Imissdisco here on Commons. I am inclined to unblock Imissdisco, however, for unblock request to be granted, COM:BP requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue -- neither are on offer in Imissdisco's unblock request. The unblock request has not been declined or processed. If Imissdisco responds to my questions and demonstrates that they have an understanding of the issue and provides a credible commitment to discontinue, then we can proceed with granting the request to be unblocked. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Nat, thank you. I saw this after I responded to your post on their talk page. I'm not sure if the user has any desire to get unblocked because I doubt they have a desire to ever return here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

sock block request

Hi, Could someone block Showme3 for being a sock of Stan_old - Showme3 hasn't edited since December 2019 which was before Stan was indeffed however he could easily return given he's now indeffed here, Metadata for Showme3s and Stans images are both the same. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked Showme3 indefinitely, but did not delete his uploads. If somebody thinks, that they must be deleted, then regular discussion is needed. At least some of them has educational value. Taivo (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, Many thanks for doing this - I have tagged his files for DR but did wonder if some were okay to be here, I'll have a look again, Thanks again for your help it's much appreciated, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:JeyReydar97

JeyReydar97 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked Jey for a month and will delete his/her last remaining uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Giovanni Manchia

Giovanni Manchia (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Done GMG ^talk 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, GMG. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Tafulug001

Tafulug001 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked again. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, EugeneZelenko. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Judgefloro's seemingly ad hominem inputs in DRs

Recently, Judgefloro (talk · contribs) seems to make ad hominem response in various FOP-related DR's, such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City San Lazaro.

While there is now pending bill in the Congress seeking to amend the copyright law (and add an FOP provision), IPOPHL-BCRR (Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines-Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights) said in the February 10, 2020 freedom of panorama dialogue on Zoom that the current status (freedom of panorama is not provided in the copyright law) remains and a need of permission/authorization of license from the copyright holders (e.g. architects / sculptors) is still required if releasing these images under free licensing.

That's why in the DR's (including several I started), I always request him to contact the copyright holders and do the process as outlined in COM:OTRS. However, his responses: ad hominem inputs. He even ignored COM:EVIDENCE, saying that COM:EVIDENCE applies to architects, sculptors, etc.. (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Tarlac). I can see no indication that he will contact the architects, sculptors, etc..

I don't know if ANU is a right venue for this, and I am already used to his attacks, but for this time he made a problematic comment ("a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believe, I never filed any Undeletions, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the DOJ, the IPO and Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE", example Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Contemporary sculpture Jorge B. Vargas Museum and Filipiniana Research Center). This despite IPOPHL-BCRR's comment at the online dialogue that copyright laws are statutory rights, and provisions like FOP cannot be made into existence by just legal studies, interpretations, etc.. (contray to what Judgefloro claims). Such provisions must be indicated and defined. And to sum up, photographers must obtain free license from the architects, sculptors, etc.., while the bill to amend the copyright is still pending at Congress. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone should give him a notice and to remind him that while no FOP status still apply, authorization for a free licensing from the copyright holders (the architects/sculptors/their heirs) is still required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply with Comprehensive History of the Case

Thanks for the message; I prepared a Legal Discussion here - The accusation has no legal or factual basis respectfully submitted to the Commons Community very sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My response

Note @Judgefloro: has replied at User talk:Judgefloro#Introduction, using copy-paste methods from various archives of talk pages and other discussions. It reminds me of elcobbola's response to me at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-10#File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpg (2nd UNDEL attempt), in which they remarked that "...you buy that, and think nothing of what the double !voting betrays about the genuineness of their opinion, I have a bridge to sell you...". But I do not want to sway my response to their inputs. To counter his major inputs:

His leading bases, the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020), is irrelevant for Wikimedia Commons. It is for real life cases and proceedings outside Commons. He seems to treat all deletion requests as similar to court cases and Wikimedia Commons as a court, but that's not the case: deletion requests are not like court cases. Numerous Burj Khalifa and Louvre Pyramid pictures were deleted without the need of "intervention from the countries' courts". This Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases is not relevant to Commons.
He seems to counter COM:EVIDENCE policy through this 2020 revised rules of procedure. (Quote: "For instance, the 2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof.") But, this doesn't apply to Commons as, like I said, deletion requests are not like court hearings. He also uses this revised rules and procedure to counter Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, by claiming that the architects and sculptors need to submit proof.
His claim that all artists must register first their works in order to obtain copyright is invalidated by IPOPHL's page on copyright itself. I might copy-paste the relevant paragraphs here: "Copyright laws grant authors, artists and other creators automatic protection for their literary and artistic creations, grom the moment they create it. Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit. This proves that despite the new rules and procedures, the regular rules apply, because if the Philippines abandoned this and reverted to mandatory registration, we would have breached the Berne Convention and most of WIPO treaties.
He continues to ignore the rule on government-commissioned works, claiming "local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law...". According to section 178.4 of the copyright law, "In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary." COM:EVIDENCE applies for proof of written stipulation. It's true that government works are in public domain, but that doesn't extend to works of architecture, sculptures, and other FOP-reliant objects. IPOPHL itself cited People Power Monument as an example of a Philippine artistic work that is protected by copyright during the 2020 commemoration of the 1986 EDSA Revolution. People Power Monument is owned by the state and the public, but Eduardo Castrillo's heirs still hold the copyright. The Local Government Code has no power to waives all sculptors' and architects' copyrights over their works to the municipalities. Physical ownership is not equivalent to copyright. Payment of fees to the municipalities by artists or creators doesn't remove their copyright too.
"4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions" - the so-called 4-years prescription has long been countered by a reply by Clindberg when I asked him at (User talk:Clindberg/archives 10#About Judgefloro's claim of "extinctive prescription" for RA 8293).
On church properties ("Reply, Rejoinder: Roman Catholic Churches, statues and accessories are outside the scope of the prohibitions of Philippine Copyright Laws by virtue of Settle Jurisprudence and Case laws of Canon Law and International Law") - countered by Aymatth2 at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Freedom of panorama for religious works and properties. The canon laws are only relevant for churches' uses of copyrighted works for any purposes, but that doesn't remove the artists' copyright with respect to uses by other people not working or serving in the church.
Lastly, he countered IPOPHL-BCRR's explanation by putting ad hominem inputs against IPOPHL people (e.g. at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Emilio Aguinaldo Monument in Malolos, Bulacan), saying that "if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office...". This is another form of ad hominem input, and a possible online threat against IPOPHL people.

To end, the inputs of IPOPHL-BCRR in the Feb. 10, 2021 Zoom dialogue is clear: freedom of panorama is not currently provided in the copyright law. Copyright laws are statutory rights, and such things cannot be made by legal interpretations, opinions, studies, etc. alone. That's why the bill amending the copyright is now pending in the Congress (but that will still pass through Senate and the President, and the Implementing Rules and Regulations for the future Philippine FOP will be formulated, perhaps taking a year more or less, considering the prioritization of the legislature on bills more relevant to COVID-19 response and recovery). But again, with the current no FOP status as confirmed by IPOPHL-BCRR, photographers like Judgefloro are required to ask for a free license from the copyright holders before taking photos of these FOP-reliant works and publishing them under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or PD licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This asking of permission and license also applies to photos already hosted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Judgefloro: It doesn't look like @JWilz12345: made any comment whatsoever in your linked DR other than to create the nominations. My personal suggestion, regardless of whatever might happen from this thread, is you probably need to chill out. It's not terribly helpful to repeatedly post pages long compilations of hereto, whereas, henceforth. You will find a great deal more success if you speak plain concise English. Also, please remember that this is a multi-lingual project, and make some effort to be considerate of the substantial number of users that speak English as a second language. GMG ^talk 13:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Thanks and good evening from hereat Philippines ; thanks for you message and kindness; allow me to state with all due respect that the Mass Deletions of JWilz12345 in my Talk Pages are almost daily and there is a very long debate going on; if you notice, JWilz12345 filed hereat a very long Response; thus I am obliged to answer them point by point; it took me about 7 hours to write via research the Introduction Reply and not it took me 5 hours to write the Rejoinder; rest assured that when I have time I will file and Executive Summary which is suggested by the Help Desk kind administrator,

Please give me time to succinctly or tersely summarize this long Legal Treatise for the Commons Community sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a court and nobody gets paid to sort through several thousand words of quasi-legal filings you've repeatedly posted in several different places. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems the lengthy reply you've received is in response to your own long windedness. You will, I suppose, eventually find someone willing to sort through these reams of text, but you're not doing yourself any favors, because the average user is probably just not going to read it at all.

Poking around (because no, I also do not have the time to spend hours reading everything you've written) I can say for certain that no matter how much flowery language and Latin phrases you use, you are not going to entice the WMF legal team to weigh in on your uploads. That's simply not something they do. So you can probably drop that bit all together. Besides that, you would probably have a stronger argument if 1) this was the only user nominating your uploads for deletion, 2) the nominations weren't generally successful, and 3) if this user was somehow only nominating your uploads, when it seems they are simply making lots of nominations, many of which end up being yours. It would also help if I could not fairly easily find instances like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Food menus in the Philippines, where I completely agree with the rational and the deletion, because these pretty clearly seem to be derivative works.

Having said all that, before you spend several hours replying with pages of text, don't bother. I'm simply not going to read it. Let me be quite clear about that. Responding to something like File:9391SM Center Pulilan 02.jpg with 2,400 words of mostly unrelated text is bordering on disruption. It's not a complicated issue. It's a picture of a copyrighted work containing again copyrighted cartoon characters. That's the end of the discussion. It does not in any way require us to opine on the nature of the Filipino Supreme Court or the minimum wage. GMG ^talk 13:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I am reminded of my favourite legal judgement: "Counsel made nine points in his appeal. There's nothing in any of them. Nine times nothing is nothing. Appeal dismissed". None of us has the time to wade through interminable legalese, even though we used to do it for a living. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

My Critique-Rejoinder (answer to Response) of JWilz12345

Extended content

NB JWilz12345 counters that User talk:Judgefloro#Introduction, used copy-paste methods from various archives of talk pages and other discussions. The History and long case of JWilz12345 almost daily editing or inputs of Mass Deletion Requests was tersely laid as Evidence of Disruptive Editing in the Comprehensive history of edits of my Talk pages by User:JWilz12345 starting with TWO Requests 3 December 2017 Request to me to take Photos : Balite Drive and Skyway Segment 10; this Faulty generalization puts in my reverberating mind FOP Sorry "I am sorry, but I don't have the time or energy to fully comprehend FOP-related legalities in the Philippines, so I am neutral. Please stop pinging me about them. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Ok. I understand.

Sorry again. Philippine FOP is actually stressful to me . I actually hate seeing these deleted, but "my hands are tied" because I must comply with the longstanding policies here. I hope that Wikimedia Foundation will finally agree to initiate a dialogue with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama. Because that is what IPOPHL indicated in their reply to an email sent by Higad Rail Fan in November 2020. This dialogue may be helpful in pushing for the inclusion of FOP in the approved amendment to R.A. 8293, because the proposed amendment, House Bill No. 8062, still has no FOP provision. The exceptions are now at Chapter VII, Sections 159.1–165.3. Hopefully WMF agrees to the WMF–IPOPHL dialogue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC) But I do not want my response to be affected by their inputs. To contradict JWilz12345's each and every * fallacy , I respectfully Proffer the following:

Point ONE - First Fallacy of JWilz12345 - he cites my cited, the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020), saying, and I quote "that it is is irrelevant for Wikimedia Commons. It is for real life cases and proceedings outside Commons. He seems to treat all deletion requests as similar to court cases and Wikimedia Commons as a court, but that's not the case: deletion requests are not like court cases. Numerous Burj Khalifa and Louvre Pyramid pictures were deleted without the need of "intervention from the countries' courts". This Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases is not relevant to Commons."

This reminds me of THREE things a) De mimis Discussion most relevant to this case "IMO it is actually ridiculous that mere users need to establish the legal policies to which Commons must adhere. One would expect the Wikimedia lawyers to take care of this. I guess that would be my starting point... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC) We could ask the WMF legal team to issue guidance in this matter. (I am the author of meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights myself...) --Gnom (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)" b) "And, many thanks for the photos! It's a great help since most of the available photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 are way back to around mid-2018 at most recent. Again, I'll be looking forward for your additional photos.JWilz12345 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC) :-) @Judgefloro: I think they wouldn't allow it since the construction is ongoing (not to mention the safety/ease of construction mobility issues). Again, I'll be looking forward for added pictures, most esp. when the weather improves (at least slightly).JWilz12345 (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC) and

c) Analysis Source Again, I'm not an expert in law. I might page @Clindberg, King of Hearts, and Howhontanozaz: for this.

'From this point on I won't get involved in deletion requests at various photos of Philippine structures and artworks until a major development to the FOP situation in the Philippines occurs. The source used here is https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ph/ph198en.pdf (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition)). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

1st Question to JWilz12345 : You stated as Admission Against Interest that is Declaration against your interest that i) "You are not an expert in law and b) From this point on I won't get involved in deletion requests at various photos of Philippine structures and artworks until a major development to the FOP situation in the Philippines occurs" - then Why tell me, a Member of the Philippine Bar, a Lawyer and Jurist Regional Trial Judge with evidence Legal Expertise both in Civil and Criminal Law that I am wrong?

2nd Question to JWilz12345 : why do you continue the Mass Deletion Requests which is only within the Domain of Wikimedia Foundation Lawyers?

Point TWO - SECOND Fallacy of JWilz12345 - he states that I seem to counter COM:EVIDENCE policy through this 2020 revised rules of procedure. (Quote: "For instance, the 2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof.") But, this doesn't apply to Commons as, like I said, deletion requests are not like court hearings. He also uses this revised rules and procedure to counter Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, by claiming that the architects and sculptors need to submit proof." This statement is Legally Untenable being utterly Devoid of any Merit in law or in Fact: in support of my Contradiction, here:

"There is no local (Philippines) jurisprudence or court records that ruled on FOP nor any copyright protection on landscape, architectural works in relation to photography. The intent of the law is protection on the reproduction of architectural plans and physical reproduction of finished works and not landscape photography."

I support my Stance by a landmark FOP ruling by the Supreme Court on G.R. No. 195835 SISON OLAÑO, VS. LIM ENG CO. dated March 2016, Copyright infringement is thus committed by any person who shall use original literary or artistic works, or derivative works, without the copyright owner's consent in such a manner as to violate the foregoing copy and economic rights. For a claim of copyright infringement to prevail, the evidence on record must demonstrate: (1) ownership of a validly copyrighted material by the complainant; and (2) infringement of the copyright by the respondent. This applies to no FOP tags by random users claiming a building, structure, public art in the Philippines automatically presumed to have a copyright. The ruling state that any petitioner citing a copyright violation must establish a valid evidence like certification from the Intellectual Property of the Philippines that a subject (for example, a building or a sculpture) has an existing copyright on its record and is deposited. As for architectural works, copyright violation happen is when a violating party got the patented architectural plans, drawings reproduced and used as basis for reproduction of its final product. A mere possession of the image the finished product does not mean the person already commit a copyright violation.

An earlier ruling, on G.R No. 161295, dated June 29, 2005, it states that Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and copyrightability. By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least same minimal degree of creativity. Copying is shown by proof of access to copyrighted material and substantial similarity between the two works. The applicant must thus demonstrate the existence and the validity of his copyright because in the absence of copyright protection, even original creation may be freely copied.

To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one element of copyright validity. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate. The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.

This therefore solidifies freedom of any content contributor, whether in Commons or Wikipedia in Flickr, Photobucket that taking photograph of any subject and uploading it on commons or any internet site does not violate copyright unless there is valid evidence that the subject possesses intellectual property.

Point THREE - THIRD Fallacy of JWilz12345 - states that I do claim that all artists must register first their works in order to obtain copyright is invalidated by IPOPHL's page on copyright itself."Copyright laws grant authors, artists and other creators automatic protection for their literary and artistic creations, grom the moment they create it. Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit. This proves that despite the new rules and procedures, the regular rules apply, because if the Philippines abandoned this and reverted to mandatory registration, we would have breached the Berne Convention and most of WIPO treaties."

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is never an issue in this discussions; the Supreme Court and the IPO-Bureau of Copyrights never transgressed the same nor any other World Treaty in formulating the New 2020 Circular on FOP; on the contrary the the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020) implements Copyright Law not just for Court Evidence Procedures but in all case (whether trademark, tradename, unfair competition or FOP Coyright issues - Commons Uploading); your False_analogy is the height of false logic in argumentation; you divert the topic to Berne when the only issue is Commons Uploading; like this 'Numerous Burj Khalifa and Louvre Pyramid pictures were deleted without the need of "intervention from the countries' courts" Again another False_analogy : the Laws thereat are different from Philippine Laws; it is like asking which is more beautiful a rose or ylang-ylang;

Point FOUR- FOURTH Fallacy of JWilz12345 - Can you cite an authority whether local (IPO) or SC Ruling which can support your stance that This Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases is not relevant to Commons.? I never contradict COM:EVIDENCE policy by this 2020 revised rules of procedure. (Quote: "For instance, the 2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof.") Distinguo : Court hearing are not applicable to Commons uploading or even Deletion discussion.

Your heavy reliance on Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, is highly devoid of legal merit; I never stated that architects and sculptors need to submit proof here, but only in Special Court or in IPO Procedures if they file the case; if you base your Mass Deletion Requests;

Time and again I did underscore that the mere Creation of the work of art inter alia, like books, etc, IPSO FACTO vests upon the Creator a moral right called Copyright; in fact your did state: @Judgefloro: I think that Ianlopez1115 is formulating a draft for the request for formal opinion of DOJ on the Commons:FOP Philippines matter, based on his reply at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. You may want to reach out to his talk page at User talk:Ianlopez1115. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Category:Letter of Judge Florentino V. Floro to Wikimedia Commons editors - users @Judgefloro: I will post these two photos at the most relevant forum, at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The foregoing are indubitable evidence of your Faulty generalization;

Point FIVE- FIFTH Fallacy of JWilz12345 - states that I ignored the rule on government-commissioned works, claiming "local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vvis-à-visRA 3019 Graft Law...". According to section 178.4 of the copyright law, "In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary." This is the height of Faulty generalization; how can a Lawyer and Judge contradict the law; you are taking my statements out of context by cherry picking parts thereof that will support your Fallacy;

Not only did I repeatedly underscore that Government works like the Municipal Hall and Tourism offices of Bulacan inter alia are sourced from LGU Funds and National Funds if any; take for example the Photographs of Coronation of Birhen ng Baliwag: the photographer as SOP signs a De Kahon contract being paid and simultaneous transfer of all his rights to the Municipal Government; the Commons Community may take Judicial Notice hereof due to the fact that this is embodied in the Local Government Code vis-vis Copyright Law as Implemented by the latest the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020);

The Article VIII – Judicial Department Judicial Supremacy of the Supreme Court; it has exclusive original jurisdiction to issue Circulars which have the force and effect of law as quasi-judicial bodies do also in Rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect accordingly the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020) (A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC) which was issued upon [https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/news/supreme-courts-revised-rules-on-ip-cases-improves-litigation-driving-innovation-and-creativity/ Application of and adherence to the Revised Rules: Rule 22 of the Revised Rules specifically provides that the application of and adherence to the rules shall be subject to the periodic monitoring of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by visitation and submission of data.

COM:EVIDENCE is not contradicted by the transfer of rights of creators to local government; what the local government cannot do is to force them to transfer; for this reason alone, all LGUs are now required to Kaliwaan or simultaneous signing of contracts of payment and waiver of copyrights;

Point SIX - SIXTH Fallacy of JWilz12345 - wrongfully and with gross error misquoted me to wit "4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions" -

Question to JWilz12345 : Why did you not include in your arguement the Philippine law on Extinctive Prescription whereby rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time. (Arts, 11 06, par. 2 and 1139.) Another name for extinctive prescription is litigation of action. Article 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n) Article 1150. The time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day they may be brought. Vide; 172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a) SECTION 176. Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. 176.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise; 184.2. The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in such a way as to allow the work to be used in a manner which does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the right holder’s legitimate interests. SECTION 195. Waiver of Moral Rights. ‑ An author may waive his rights mentioned in Section 193 by a written instrument.

Point SEVENTH - SEVENTH Fallacy of JWilz12345 - wrongfully and with gross error misquoted me to wit " On church properties ("Reply, Rejoinder: Roman Catholic Churches, statues and accessories are outside the scope of the prohibitions of Philippine Copyright Laws by virtue of Settle Jurisprudence and Case laws of Canon Law and International Law") - countered by Aymatth2 at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Freedom of panorama for religious works and properties. The canon laws are only relevant for churches' uses of copyrighted works for any purposes, but that doesn't remove the artists' copyright with respect to uses by other people not working or serving in the church.

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II, Section 6) and, No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. (Article III, Section 5). There is no conflict between Church properties and copyright law; I repeatedly underscored that a Parish Church including its accessories plus all works of art therein, from the moment of the signing of Decretum of Solemnization Creation, IPSO FACTO vests upon the Titular Bishop of the Diocese the property and moral including copyrights of any worker of art;

Last Question to JWilz12345 : Can you cite any Law, Copyright or Supreme Court Ruling or the Philippines of USA where any sculptor or creator of work of art has been ruled to have copyrights of Church works of art inter alia? If not, then your bases must legally fall on their own weights;

FINAL Point- FINAL Fallacy of JWilz12345 - in a desperate attempt to support his final Verbum, accuses me of Ad hominem input, and a possible online threat against IPOPHL people when I just reserved my right to the Appeal Processes of Law; this is plain Fallacy used by losing Trial Lawyers I met; the process mandates that any Ruling of the IPOPHL-BCRR's is appealable to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Trade_and_Industry_(Philippines) Department of Trade and Industry ] its Decision is in turn appealable to the Salvador "Bingbong" Campo Medialdea who incidentally is the husband of my seatmate classmate Betty or it may be appealed vis Request for explanation by putting ad hominem inputs against IPOPHL people (e.g. at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Emilio Aguinaldo Monument in Malolos, Bulacan), saying that "if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office...". This is another form of Request for DOJ Opinion of my classmate seatmate and counsel of my sibling in 1 year Adoption case, Justice Secretary; No attack was done to these people since I have nothing against them; I just said that Disbarment or Violation of RA 6713 may apply if there is omission of action or negligence; remember that 2 letter of mine with the IPO were not answered in writing by Verbally En Consulta by the high ranking officer Atty. Leonardo Oliver F. Limbo, Attorney III who spoke on Enforcement of Copyright by the IPOPHL;

The inputs of IPOPHL-BCRR in the Feb. 10, 2021 Zoom dialogue are just explanation like question and answer; but they do not change or make the Copyright law; they cannot interpret the Copyright Law for it had already been done by the IPOPHL-BCRR and Supreme Court; in fact it is IPO Atty. Leonardo Oliver F. Limbo, Attorney III with whom I discussed the FOP Commons Uploading for an hour that DRAFTED the the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (November 16, 2020);

Petition to the Commons Community to Direct JWilz12345 to Stop the Mass Deletion Request on My Talk Pages and on Ramon FVelasquez and or To Put on Hold all His Mass DRs until the IPOPHL-BCRR would issue a Reply on a Third Letter that I am Drafting and will File in Due Course: ALTERNATIVELY, to instead ask any other Administrator to Re-Nominate any or all of JWilz12345's Mass DRs pending Resolution of Floods of Mass DRs now pending on FOP Philippines

IN FINE, I humbly ask the Commons Community to Direct JWilz12345 to Stop the Mass Deletion Request on My Talk Pages and on Ramon FVelasquez and or To Put on Hold all His Mass DRs until the IPOPHL-BCRR would issue a Reply on a Third Letter that I am Drafting and will File in Due Course;

ALTERNATIVELY, I I humbly ask the Commons Community to instead ask any other Administrator to Re-Nominate any or all of JWilz12345's Mass DRs pending Resolution of Floods of Mass DRs now pending on FOP Philippines; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Judgefloro: you are making things complicated. All deletion requests can be launched by anyone, and it is contrary to your claim that only lawyers can file such requests. Examine all deletion requests to Burj Khalifa and other structures from no FOP countries. Not all who started the DR's are made by lawyers.

Also, my deletion requests are not destructive, with evidences (not based on rumors). And I don't launch more than 10 FOP DRs per region (country; excludes DR's for derivative works, packaging, etc.), and as the Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending has still almost 200 case pages, I usually refrain from launching more. At this moment I refrain such initiating of DRs due to immense number of open discussions.

Those past discussions, even getting obsolete threads from my talk page that you copy-pasted as your evidences? These are already irrelevant ever since the Feb. 10, 2021 IPOPHL-BCRR dialogue, which confirmed two things: a) that Philippine FOP will soon be introduced here, and b) the current no FOP status prevails. And those IPOPHL-BCRR people in that dialogue are lawyers.

With regards to "reaching out to ianlopez115", that is no longer relevant since IPOPHL-BCRR's legal opinion in the dialogue. That also applies to your request for legal opinions and interpretations. How can these be made if FOP is nonexistent in the law in the first place (acc. to IPOPHL-BCRR)?

Please read thoroughly both User talk:Clindberg/archives 10#About Judgefloro's claim of "extinctive prescription" for RA 8293 (where I asked Clindberg about your claim of prescriptive extinction) and Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Freedom of panorama for religious works and properties (about religious works and properties, where the lawyer-admin Aymatth2 eventually said that canon laws do not override civil laws, and the law of the deed only applies to physical ownership. And you always equate copyright with physical ownership despite that it's not so, as admins regularly say at COM:UNDEL.

Even in one DR, regarding an artwork in Angono, Rizal, Howhontanozaz forwarded a reply from Angono Cultural Heritage Office that the copyright is still held by sculptor Lito Balagtas, and as he died last year, the office said that copyright is passed to his heirs. This contradicts your claim that the Local Government Code has the power to transfer copyright. No, it is only relevant to physical possession. The government and the public owns People Power Monument, but Castrillo' heirs own the copyright. How many times will I repeat copyright ≠ physical possession?

Again, my only one request is for you to contact the copyright holders (the artists, architects, sculptors or their heirs, not the owners like municipal offices, the churches etc.) and ask their permissions for free licensing of your images, via COM:OTRS correspondence. It's very simple, you're just complicating things. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Judgefloro, a reference you cited [29] is not FOP related. It is "The petitioners are the officers and/or directors of Metrotech Steel Industries, Inc. (Metrotech).[6] Lim Eng Co (respondent), on the other hand, is the Chairman of LEC Steel Manufacturing Corporation (LEC), a company which specializes in architectural metal manufacturing." More applied to industrial design than architecture and sculptures. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm just going to boldly collapse this. This is such a jumbled mess of unsigned comments, half signed comments, comments out of order, and comments apparently copy/pasted from third parties... I honestly can't even tell who said what here.

This is not a venue for litigating the entirety of Filipino copyright law. If there is a particular issue with a particular file, it needs to be discussed in the particular at COM:DR. If there is a problem with a DR, then it need to be discussed in the particular at COM:UDR. If there is confusion over a particular issue of copyright, then it needs to be discussed in the particular at COM:VPC. GMG ^talk 14:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I wrote a summary of the whole thing on Commons:Help desk#Executive summary by User:JWilz12345, within a thread began by Judgefloro itself (with the "executive summary" headers added by Jmabel). For the review if the copyright law, that FOP status is clear in accordance with IPOPHL-BCRR's webinar last February 10, 2021 (indicated at the bottom of COM:FOP Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe I've already a bit touched on the issue that these long winding diatribes being posted in response to DRs are unproductive bordering on disruption. Of course anyone is welcome to seek discussion and clarification of the rules and regulations, though that's generally more appropriate at a forum like COM:VPC. Judging by the 7,000 word novella at HD, if a user can't manage to have that discussion in a way that is intelligible, then our local standards are not in any way going to change, and their images will continue to be deleted. Generally, if a user continues to upload inappropriate files that get deleted, they get blocked. They may consider that a warning or not as they please, though a blocking administrator may certainly consider it sufficient notification.

The onus is on the uploader to effectively communicate why their files are appropriate. If that truly requires 7,000 words of impenetrable legalese, then it's quite possible that sufficient doubt exists about the copyright status that it's not appropriate regardless. If we find more clarity at some point in the future, the files can always be undeleted. GMG ^talk 16:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Tanner novak

Tanner novak (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

blocked rubin16 (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, rubin16. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Destinyinstitutesalatiga

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

Copyvios after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Geagea (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Geagea. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Junior2912

Junior2912 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after last warning. --Ovruni (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Due to big number of copyvios I deleted Junior for month. Also I deleted last remaining upload as recreation of content previously deleted as copyvio. Taivo (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Puropanzer29

Puropanzer29 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after last warning. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again, did you discuss this with them? Did you make any attempt to explain what the problem was, to this brand new user? No. So why are you immediately calling for action here (presumably some form of blocking). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Template:Copyvionote and Template:End of copyvios have explanations for users. That will be enough. If you think that's not enough, you may want to suggest changing the text of the templates. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked Puropanzer for a week and will delete his/her last remaining contributions. Warning the user with templates is enough, no further attempt to explain the situation is usually not needed. Taivo (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Coldplay48

Coldplay48 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvio after warnings. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. I blocked Coldplay for a month. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:EJ Bishop3

EJ Bishop3 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyvios after warnings. This user has been blocked before. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. The user is blocked for a month. Uploads are deleted, two lasts are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Taivo and Nat. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Princhex2012

User: Princhex2012 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading after warnings for doing so. All 5 uploads have been copyvios. Vandalism.

— Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Both vandalism and copyvios have stopped after you warned him. Thank you for nominating his uploads for deletion! Taivo (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)